NationStates Jolt Archive

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050509-4886.html

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/05/real_id.html

So now we have "real id" cards, paid for by the state, not the Federal government. They are dramatically unpopular, pointless and intrusive. On top of that they are expensive and possible to manipulate.

In addition, we've granted limited dictatorial powers to the Department of Homeland security. Officially now, within the border areas of the US they cannot be questioned or challanged.

So a Public Service announcement: Anyone within a 14mile radius of the border is now officially the property of the federal government. You have no rights beyond what they choose to leave you, you have no control and no say, and no legal authority whatsoever.

Anyone care to defend these actions? Who here thinks giving dictatorial powers to an unproven and untested branch of government is a good idea? Who here wants to be tagged like Shamoo the whale and monitered like a common criminal? Anyone?

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050509-4886.html

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/05/real_id.html

So now we have "real id" cards, paid for by the state, not the Federal government. They are dramatically unpopular, pointless and intrusive. On top of that they are expensive and possible to manipulate.

In addition, we've granted limited dictatorial powers to the Department of Homeland security. Officially now, within the border areas of the US they cannot be questioned or challanged.

So a Public Service announcement: Anyone within a 14mile radius of the border is now officially the property of the federal government. You have no rights beyond what they choose to leave you, you have no control and no say, and no legal authority whatsoever.

Anyone care to defend these actions? Who here thinks giving dictatorial powers to an unproven and untested branch of government is a good idea? Who here wants to be tagged like Shamoo the whale and monitered like a common criminal? Anyone?
Err, No? :headbang:

Though I DO think you should be able to PROVE legal residency (for the area in which you are supposed to vote) before voting... Not sure how to do that without some sort of ID card. :confused:

[Devil's Advocate]

The world has a population of more than six billion people. It is inevitable that a small minority of these six billion people desire to cause harm and damage to our homeland. This harm and damage may include causing harm and damage to your self or to your loved ones. As a responsible government we have the duty to protect your children and aged parents from running such unnecessary risks to their life and limb. We also have a duty to protect them from the emotional harm they would suffer if anything were to happen to you. To enable us to carry out this duty which you have quite rightly and wisely conferred on your caring government, we need to be able to act in accordance to the threat that these bloodthirsty and determined terrorists pose to our beloved land. We are therefore obliged to restrict some tiny portion of yopur liberties to ensure your safety. Think of it like being required to use a crash helmet on a motorbike, or to use radiation telltales when working with our clean power providing military radioactive material handling facilities. It is necessary for your safety.

[/Devils Advocate]

Or something like that is how they will probably defend it. (Note, no country is specified here.)

Dude, we have to give up our old way of life so that the terrorists can't destroy our way of life.

[Devil's Advocate]

The world has a population of more than six billion people. It is inevitable that a small minority of these six billion people desire to cause harm and damage to our homeland. This harm and damage may include causing harm and damage to your self or to your loved ones. As a responsible government we have the duty to protect your children and aged parents from running such unnecessary risks to their life and limb. We also have a duty to protect them from the emotional harm they would suffer if anything were to happen to you. To enable us to carry out this duty which you have quite rightly and wisely conferred on your caring government, we need to be able to act in accordance to the threat that these bloodthirsty and determined terrorists pose to our beloved land. We are therefore obliged to restrict some tiny portion of yopur liberties to ensure your safety. Think of it like being required to use a crash helmet on a motorbike, or to use radiation telltales when working with our clean power providing military radioactive material handling facilities. It is necessary for your safety.

[/Devils Advocate]

Or something like that is how they will probably defend it. (Note, no country is specified here.)

I fail to see how having National ID cards will stop the WTFTURRISTS from getting in.

ALERT FROM JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization

May 10, 2005

JPFO ALERT: THE END OF AMERICA - MAY 10, 2005

On Tuesday, May 10, 2005, America became a true police state. Your U.S. senators voted -- unanimously, with no discussion, and without even reading the bill -- to create a national ID card.

The Real ID Act blackmails state governments into turning their drivers licenses into a draconian tool of the federal homeland security apparatus. If states refuse, their citizens lose such "privileges" as being allowed to board an airplane, enter a federal building, or apply for social security. President Bush is expected to sign the bill eagerly on Thursday.

In three years -- by May 2008 -- this Stalin-style internal passport will be an American reality. But your government will have _more_ control over you than Stalin ever dreamed in his most violent, vicious, anti-freedom dreams. (See links to the text of the law and articles about it at the bottom of this article.)

But that's only the beginning.

The creator of the Real ID Act, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, smiles and tells us that his Real ID Act is all about "solving illegal immigration" or "preventing terrorists from entering the country." This is one of the biggest of the thousands of "Big Lies" we've heard from the tyrants in Washington. The Real ID Act is about tracking and controlling Americans. You. Me. Our children. Everybody.

In May 2008, barring a miracle, America as we once knew it will be in ruins. It will be gone. And the rights of gun owners will be among the first scheduled for destruction.

GUN OWNERS: PREPARE TO RESIST

Here's your future:

* You walk into a gun store, fill out your 4473, and show your government ID just as you now do. But instead of looking at your license and taking down some information, the clerk runs the license (which is likely to contain a radio-frequency ID chip) through a scanner. Your purchase is instantly recorded in your _state_ drivers license registry. The federal government isn't currently allowed to keep a gun registry. But no problem; the Real ID act gives them an open door into your state records.

* Complete information on every firearm you buy will be instantly available to every police officer (and possibly every government employee, store clerk, or computer hacker) you ever encounter. You'll be an instant criminal suspect every time you deal with someone who has access to the database.

* Just as travelers are encouraged to get background checks and give fingerprints to avoid some of the worst excesses of TSA screening, gun owners will be encouraged to get background checks and give whatever biometric ID the Department of Homeland Security requires. This will be sold as a "benefit," ensuring you'll never again experience an "instant-check" delay. In fact, Congress, the ATF, or the FBI might even "mandate" 5-day or 15-day delays for anyone not enrolled in the "Trusted Firearms Buyer" program.

* The private purchase "loophole" will be closed, so that all gun buyers must make trackable purchases. (The ultimate goal is for _every_ purchase of every kind to be
trackable.)

* Buying ammo? The store scans your national ID card and -- bingo! -- your purchase is registered in the state database.

* The federal government or state governments can now also _effectively_ legislate limits on the amount or kind of ammunition you're "allowed" to purchase. Try to buy more and the database instantly rejects you.

* The federal government or state governments can now also _effectively_ legislate limits on the number of guns you may own. Try to buy more, and the database rejects you.

* Eventually -- after the federal government "discovers"
the obvious, that national ID won't stop either illegal immigration or terrorism -- the old attack on "evil guns"
will resume. When they want your .50 BMG they'll know just where to find it (because the Real ID act says your home address _must_ be revealed). When they want your evil "scoped sniper rifle" (you know, the one you hunt deer with), they'll know just how to get it. Ditto with you "Saturday Night Special" or your "assault weapon."

* If you don't surrender your guns, well, then the Department of Homeland Security will cut off your driving "privilege," as well as your right to escape the growing police state via plane. You'll be a prisoner in your own home, in your own country. Or you'll be forced to function as an outlaw, operating and living a precarious existence beneath the government radar.

PARANOID? OR PAYING ATTENTION?

You say these projections are ridiculous? That we're paranoid?

Well, frankly, if the Real ID Act doesn't make you paranoid, you're not paying enough attention. We ask you to consider the long-term impact of a few other acts of government.

In the 1930s, Congress promised us that our social security numbers would never, absolutely never, be used for identification. Now, they're the key to everything about us
-- and without a social security number you won't get a drivers license and you won't even be "allowed" to drive after May 2008.

In 1913, Congress and the media swore to us that the brand- new income tax would only affect the rich. Well, how rich do you feel after paying 40 percent of your income (or
more!) in taxes?

This is the way government works. They've even got a term for it: mission creep. And there is no creepier mission than the mission the federal government has currently set
itself: to track everyone, everywhere, and to control what we do.

We warned you in _The State vs. the People_
(http://www.jpfo.org/tsvtp.htm) that this was coming. That book is still relevant, still a good read, and still filled with information about what our future will be like in this new American police state.

Be forewarned. Be aware.

REAL ID: IT'S THE LAW AND IT'S CRIMINAL

Please take a moment to go to this site:
http://www.rebelfirerock.com/home.html. Click on the link that leads to the song "Justice Day." Listen to the music or read the lyrics. Here's the opening of the song:

You're the boot.
Stomping on the human face forever.
You're the eye.
Staring down on everyone and ever seeing all.
You're the lie.
Twisting all our minds into your whoredom.
You are Death.
You are war.
You are slavery.
You're the law.
You're the law.
You're the LAW!

George Orwell was the first to describe totalitarianism as a "boot stomping on the human face forever." But in Orwell's day Americans would have had a hard time believing that the law -- the good old, all-American legislature -- all those smiling senators and "representatives" would be the ones to plant their iron heels in our faces. Back in those innocent days, we imagined tyranny would come from _outside_.

Well, tyranny is here. And it's a gift from the very people we so trustingly put into office.

Tyranny is THE LAW.

Is this a way to run a country? Tacking something as onerous as national ID onto a must-pass bill and making it law without any debate? What does this say about people the gun owners consider their friends? In the House, where the bill containing the Real ID Act passed 368-58, only three Republicans voted against it. Here's the final roll-call vote so you can see how your own congressperson voted:
http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-
bin/vote.asp?year=2005&rollnumber=161#N (or http://************/cr3bj )

In the Senate, not one person cared enough about freedom to vote against it -- or even to demand that senators _discuss_ it.

(The Real ID Act originally passed the House in February as a standalone bill (H.R. 418) by a vote of 261-to-161. House leaders, realizing national ID would have been in trouble in the Senate, then added it to a must-pass military appropriations bill in a cynical ploy to make it almost impossible to fight national ID.)

Turning America into a full-fledged police state was just business as usual to your representatives. And, just as Adolf Hitler scrupulously followed German law while committing his horrors, so your "representatives" and the bureaucrats you face at the national-ID drivers license bureau will also be following the law -- the Real ID law that allows them to enslave you.

(To see what a real Bill of Rights leader would do, read the novel _Hope_ by Aaron Zelman and L. Neil Smith:
http://www.jpfo.org/hope.htm.)

WHAT NEXT?

We have two choices now: Resist or submit.

More than 600 organizations, from the American Civil Liberties Union to the National Governors Association, opposed the bill. Even the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (which loves national ID and was largely responsible for an earlier attempt at such legislation nine years ago) criticized it.

We can expect lawsuits against national ID, including at least one suit led by state governments.

However, nearly all the opposition from state governments focuses on one area: They're upset because the federal government didn't offer them extra money to enslave us. If Congress bribes them with enough millions and billions, they'll gladly sell our freedom.

Only one state, Montana, has so far absolutely refused to cooperate with national ID. The Montana legislature passed a law saying they would not go along. However, that will mean that Montana residents are barred from flying without extreme extra scrutiny or from applying for federal benefits because their licenses will be "non-compliant."
Although we applaud the courageous Montana legislators, no doubt we'll soon hear many Montanans demanding the "privilege" of having a real national ID card.

Ultimately, real resistance is up to us, as individuals.
There are certain courses of action JPFO cannot recommend.
But every freedom lover should be pleased if all the people who had a hand in creating Real ID act lost their jobs -- soon. And those individuals who truly value their (and their children's) futures should seriously consider making national ID their line in the sand.

We have already heard from many people saying they will drive without a license rather than submit to a license that has become a Stalinist control document. We just hope their resolve stays equally strong when they face a world in which it's impossible to buy, sell, retire, travel -- or buy a gun -- without national ID.

We ask you to remember men like Alexandr Solzhenitzyn (http://nobelprize.org/literature/laureates/1970/solzhenits
yn-autobio.html or http://************/at9yn ) and Natan Sharansky (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/shar
ansky.html or http://************/chwet ). Both stood up and boldly opposed a tyrannical regime in the Soviet Union. Both risked their lives. Both suffered horribly for their resistance and their protests. But eventually, they triumphed -- and the Soviet Union crumbled.

We are in need of such people, and such courage, today. We cannot wait for _someone else_ to stand up and show that kind of integrity.

We must become the kind of people we admire if we are ever again to live in a nation we can trust.

G-d help us if we fail.*

- The Liberty Crew


ABOUT THE REAL ID ACT

Text of the law: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-
bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.00418: or http://************/3qdv4

"No Real Debate for Real ID"
http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,67471,00.html?tw=w
n_tophead_1 or http://************/b4xqv

"Last Chance to Stop National ID"
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=5887 (written before Senate passage)



* We spell G-d this way because in Judaism it is considered
a sign of respect. We spell out the name of the Creator
only in sacred settings.



===========================================================

JPFO mirror site: http://www.jpfo.net

================================================================
Original Material in JPFO ALERTS is Copyright 2005 JPFO, Inc.
Permission is granted to reproduce this alert in full, so long
as the following JPFO contact information is included:

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
PO Box 270143
Hartford, Wisconsin 53027

Phone: 1-262-673-9745
Order line: 1-800-869-1884 (toll-free!)
Fax: 1-262-673-9746
Web: http://www.jpfo.org/
================================================================

Radical, but not entirely wrong... :(

OK, Medici, from what I can gather, Americans are about to get national ID cards. Many countries in Western Europe have had their citizens carrying ID cards for decades.

Aside from the much-cited protections against terrorism, ID cards can also prove very useful in missing persons cases.

the reason for national ID cards is very simple.... several of the 9/11 Hijackers had valid drivers licenses even though their INS cards had expired

they had to present photo ID (and it had to be valid) to get airline tickets

of course this is closing the barn door after the horse gets out, but thats why they want those ID cards

Dude, we have to give up our old way of life so that the terrorists can't destroy our way of life.
I call BULLSHIT!

We do NOT have to give up our old way of life to stop the terrorists...all we have to do is actually ENFORCE current immigration laws and shore up the borders. We do NOT need a national ID card.

This whole thing smacks of communist totalitarianism/national socialism.

"Your papers, sir?"

Here is the way I see it. So far, the federal government has failed to adequately protect out borders and millions of people have entered the US illegally. These people have broken our laws. They are criminals and they cost our state and federal government millions of dollars in education and health care, millions that could and should be spent on our own citizens. It is also obvious that some terrorist have been able to enter into the country illegally albeit a small number.

Driver’s licenses are generally accepted as a legal form of identification, much like a passport. The difference is a passport requires proof or citizenship while a driver’s license does not nor does it require proof of legal immigration status. So, what is wrong with requiring someone who wants a drivers license to prove they are in this country legally? Who is hurt by this?

Unfortunately, some states have decided to give drivers licenses to illegal aliens under the misguided excuse that they will “get insurance.” Hell, many of our own citizens don’t have auto insurance and that’s why I have to pay for uninsured motorist insurance.

Now, why shouldn’t someone who wants to fly on a commercial aircraft have to show some proof of identification? That makes sense. I appreciate the airline knowing whom I am flying with. So, what is wrong with the airline making sure you are who you say you are by accepting only a government approved form of identification? Hell, some hotels in foreign countries require you show your passport when you check into a hotel. Banks in foreign countries sometimes ask for a passport before exchanging currency.

Well you say, there are people who don’t drive and won’t have a driver’s license, or their state refuses to ask for proof of birth or legal immigration status. You can still fly by using some other federally approved form of ID such as a passport or military ID.

Look, I’ve had to show and ID all of my life, all 62 years of it. I’ve carried a driver’s license since I was 15, a military ID since I was 18, and I have a passport. I still carry a military ID as I am retired. I have no problem with showing my ID, in fact when I go to the grocery store or WallyWorld, and present a check or credit card and am asked for an ID, I thank the checker. Why? Because I’m being protected from someone else using my check or card.

So, what is your problem with some type of federally approved ID?

I call BULLSHIT!

We do NOT have to give up our old way of life to stop the terrorists...all we have to do is actually ENFORCE current immigration laws and shore up the borders. We do NOT need a national ID card.

This whole thing smacks of communist totalitarianism/national socialism.

"Your papers, sir?"
erm...i very much doubt he was being serious

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050509-4886.html

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/05/real_id.html

So now we have "real id" cards, paid for by the state, not the Federal government. They are dramatically unpopular, pointless and intrusive. On top of that they are expensive and possible to manipulate.


Don't know about the dictatorial powers, but I do know that European nations have had official ID cards for decades.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050509-4886.html

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/05/real_id.html

So now we have "real id" cards, paid for by the state, not the Federal government. They are dramatically unpopular, pointless and intrusive. On top of that they are expensive and possible to manipulate.

In addition, we've granted limited dictatorial powers to the Department of Homeland security. Officially now, within the border areas of the US they cannot be questioned or challanged.

So a Public Service announcement: Anyone within a 14mile radius of the border is now officially the property of the federal government. You have no rights beyond what they choose to leave you, you have no control and no say, and no legal authority whatsoever.

Anyone care to defend these actions? Who here thinks giving dictatorial powers to an unproven and untested branch of government is a good idea? Who here wants to be tagged like Shamoo the whale and monitered like a common criminal? Anyone?

It gets worse.

Although no one wants to say it, the Real ID act is actually targeted at Central and South American immigration. The "terrorism" justification is a rather a sham as it would be incredibly difficult to find terrorists in the region and with the powers provided by the act. Rather, it fulfills the longstanding Republican desire of effective ways of eliminating further immigration, irrespective of the costs to personal freedom.

[Devil's advocate]
Terrorists are about to infiltrate our borders. Given the leaky controls we have over leakier borders, it would be more than easy for them to slip into our country unbeknownest. Given the state of the Middle East, nuclear acquisition by terrorists is inevitable. Without stricter border controls, those nukes will get in to the United States.[/Devil's advocate]

Dude, we have to give up our old way of life so that the terrorists can't destroy our way of life.

If we give up our old way of life out of fear of terrorist, then the terrorist win!

Better solution: Fuck changing the way we live because of criminals. Just nuke the Middle East and get it over with. Another solution is to profile people who look and sound Middle Eastern. Who blows shit up? Maybe give em a little extra go over.

It gets worse.

Although no one wants to say it, the Real ID act is actually targeted at Central and South American immigration. The "terrorism" justification is a rather a sham as it would be incredibly difficult to find terrorists in the region and with the powers provided by the act. Rather, it fulfills the longstanding Republican desire of effective ways of eliminating further immigration, irrespective of the costs to personal freedom.

[Devil's advocate]
Terrorists are about to infiltrate our borders. Given the leaky controls we have over leakier borders, it would be more than easy for them to slip into our country unbeknownest. Given the state of the Middle East, nuclear acquisition by terrorists is inevitable. Without stricter border controls, those nukes will get in to the United States.[/Devil's advocate]

I say we conscript Mexicans who come over the border. This would have two benefits. It will increase our militray force and increase security on that border. If they want to live in the U.S., they have to go into the military for at least four to six years. Everyone who wants to come in will meet up with a recruiter.

Although no one wants to say it, the Real ID act is actually targeted at Central and South American immigration. The "terrorism" justification is a rather a sham as it would be incredibly difficult to find terrorists in the region and with the powers provided by the act. Rather, it fulfills the longstanding Republican desire of effective ways of eliminating further immigration, irrespective of the costs to personal freedom.

It targets all illegal immigrants and terrorists. :headbang: Not all illegal immigrants come from South of the border.

It targets all illegal immigrants and terrorists. :headbang: Not all illegal immigrants come from South of the border.
You're missing the point of the comment. Yes, it targets all of them. Anti-sodomy laws also nominally targeted everyone. The difference is in the way they'll be applied, and in the case of the Real ID act, the provisions are only effective in targeting illegal immigration from Central and Southern America.

Also, the vast majority of illegal immigration comes from those regions.

You're missing the point of the comment. Yes, it targets all of them. Anti-sodomy laws also nominally targeted everyone. The difference is in the way they'll be applied, and in the case of the Real ID act, the provisions are only effective in targeting illegal immigration from Central and Southern America.

Also, the vast majority of illegal immigration comes from those regions.

So, what is wrong with targeting criminals no matter where they come from? Shouldn't criminals be either in jail or deported to their home country?

It is not true that it will be effective in targeting only certain illegal immigrants. It will target all of them both majority and minority illegal immigrants.

I say we conscript Mexicans who come over the border. This would have two benefits. It will increase our militray force and increase security on that border. If they want to live in the U.S., they have to go into the military for at least four to six years. Everyone who wants to come in will meet up with a recruiter.
I don't believe in conscription. Voluntary armies are much more effective and have much better morale (hint: the two are interrelated).

It also seems to me to violate the basic principles of liberty in American society. If people really have the right to do what they want in society, they shouldn't be forced into the army.

It's also not justified because the conscripts. Setting aside the valid charge of racism, it makes the liberty argument that much stronger as these people are immigrating to get a better opportunity for themselves and their families.

So what is wrong with targeting criminals no matter where they come from? Shouldn't criminals be either in jail or deported to their home country?
Laws that selectively target individuals in application, regardless of whether they are criminals, are racist. Racism, we can agree, is bad.

Would the Black TV Thieves act pass Congress? No, because it's obviously racist. The Real ID act only manages to mask its racism to an extent that it's not obviously visible.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050509-4886.html

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/05/real_id.html

So now we have "real id" cards, paid for by the state, not the Federal government. They are dramatically unpopular, pointless and intrusive. On top of that they are expensive and possible to manipulate.



Isn't it interesting that this happens to be the same party that used to talk such a good game about state's rights and limited government? WTF happened to all of that? In fact, I think we've seen the role of government balloon out of control with this current Republican Administration.

It seems to me that this Administration's mantra is really just "States rights when it suits us, autocratic control for everything else."

I don't believe in conscription. Voluntary armies are much more effective and have much better morale (hint: the two are interrelated).


I served in the military both under the draft and under the all-volunteer forces. You are absolutely correct, a much better military under the all vol.

It seems to me that this Administration's mantra is really just "States rights when it suits us, autocratic control for everything else."

I agree with you.

However, the Democrats are inconsistant in a similar manner:

Terri Schiavo was the states' business.

Abortion is the federal government's business.

Charges of inconsistancy by both sides ring hollow.

Abortion is the federal government's business.



How so?

[QUOTE=DeleuzeWould the Black TV Thieves act pass Congress? No, because it's obviously racist. The Real ID act only manages to mask its racism to an extent that it's not obviously visible.[/QUOTE]

Get real. It has nothing to do with racism. It is all about security and illegal immigration regardless of race.

How so?
Because Roe v. Wade was a Supreme Court decision. A state's rights advocate would argue it was an unfair theft of state power to decide their own affairs.

The passage of the Real Id act does not mean we are getting a national ID card. The only ones who are saying we are, are the ones that oppose the act in the first place: they're trying (successfully) to scare people.

What the act does do, is tell states that if they do not verify a person's citizenship/legal residency/visa status then that state's ID cards would be invalid for federal purposes... say like boarding a commercial airplane.

What is it that those of you who oppose this act are agaisnt? Why are you against making sure someone is in the country legally prior to issuing identification?

This act was a good thing, and I can see absolutely no down side to it.

It seems to me that this Administration's mantra is really just "States rights when it suits us, autocratic control for everything else."

The states still have a right to issue a drivers license or state ID (no one seems to object to that?) using whatever criteria they want. So states rights are not abrogated.

The Federal government is saying they will not recognize the ID unless it meets Federal standards. So, what is the problem? Individuals can choose to obtain other forms of federally accepted ID, like a passport.

Because Roe v. Wade was a Supreme Court decision. A state's rights advocate would argue it was an unfair theft of state power to decide their own affairs.

Well, that may be so, but I still feel that abortion is a women's (individual's) issue, and not a state or federal issue.

Get real. It has nothing to do with racism. It is all about security and illegal immigration regardless of race.

You've provided no evidence to support this claim.

Here's mine:
In the realm of practical policy, extreme measures are being advocated. For example to prevent undocumented immigrants from getting driver’s licenses, anti-immigrant forces are prepared to create situations in which obtaining driver’s licenses is much more difficult and expensive for all US residents, including citizens. In the REAL ID Bill, just passed by the House of Representatives, there is language which forces states to “verify the authenticity” of all identification documents presented by people soliciting drivers licenses. States which refuse will find that their driver’s licenses can not be used for federal identification, e.g. to board an airplane.

In addition to these measures, anti-immigrant ideologues such as Mark Krikorian, also of the Center for Immigration Studies, are prepared to call for stopping or dismantling urban economic developments on the US side of the Mexican border to stop Mexicans from coming over and shopping. The government would buy up all the land around San Diego, El Paso, Laredo, etc. to prevent any kind of economic development that might attract migrants. This would entail billions in losses to US businesses. Another clause of the REAL ID Act would authorize the secretary of Homeland Security to waive any and all laws (environmental, labor, etc.) as needed to expedite the construction of certain border fences and barriers near San Diego, California. Theoretically, the DHS secretary could even employ “illegal aliens” to build fences to keep out the “illegal aliens.”

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/userletter/?id=395&letter_id=194932306 furthers my argument.

The passage of the Real Id act does not mean we are getting a national ID card. The only ones who are saying we are, are the ones that oppose the act in the first place: they're trying (successfully) to scare people.

What the act does do, is tell states that if they do not verify a person's citizenship/legal residency/visa status then that state's ID cards would be invalid for federal purposes... say like boarding a commercial airplane.

What is it that those of you who oppose this act are agaisnt? Why are you against making sure someone is in the country legally prior to issuing identification?

This act was a good thing, and I can see absolutely no down side to it.

AMEN!

The states still have a right to issue a drivers license or state ID (no one seems to object to that?) using whatever criteria they want. So states rights are not abrogated.

The Federal government is saying they will not recognize the ID unless it meets Federal standards. So, what is the problem? Individuals can choose to obtain other forms of federally accepted ID, like a passport.

The problem is that we will now be required to obtain federal I.D., where as before, all we were required to have was state I.D. I don't have a passport (not rich enough to go on vacation outside the U.S., so what's the point? lol) and I'm not at all interested in acquiring a federal I.D. I shouldn't be required to go get one. My state issued driver's license should be enough.

I don't believe in conscription. Voluntary armies are much more effective and have much better morale (hint: the two are interrelated).

It also seems to me to violate the basic principles of liberty in American society. If people really have the right to do what they want in society, they shouldn't be forced into the army.

It's also not justified because the conscripts. Setting aside the valid charge of racism, it makes the liberty argument that much stronger as these people are immigrating to get a better opportunity for themselves and their families.

It is a job opportunity. If they don't want the job, don't come into the country. I think those who stay will like the military. Free healthcare and a chance for status. Terrorist will find it more difficult to come in, or we find em close to us.

Racism? It is racist to let em in on the premise they are here to be cheap vege and fruit pickers. Why not use em for something greater?

The problem is that we will now be required to obtain federal I.D., where as before, all we were required to have was state I.D. I don't have a passport (not rich enough to go on vacation outside the U.S., so what's the point? lol) and I'm not at all interested in acquiring a federal I.D. I shouldn't be required to go get one. My state issued driver's license should be enough.
What part of "IT'S NOT A FEDERAL ID CARD" don't you understand? What this act does is require states to do something so that their state issued ID card be accepted for federal purposes. The only time you would have to do anything, other than prove you are in the country legally and you are who you say you are, is if your state choosed to not do what the federal government asks. Then, you only need to go get some other form of ID if you want to do things like board commercial planes and such.

You've provided no evidence to support this claim.

Here's mine:


http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/userletter/?id=395&letter_id=194932306 furthers my argument.
And you provided no evidence either :rolleyes:
The first paragraph doesn't mention race or racism, and the second paragraph has nothing to do with the Real ID act.

It's not racist to want to prevent criminals from obtaining legal documents.

It is a job opportunity. If they don't want the job, don't come into the country. I think those who stay will like the military. Free healthcare and a chance for status. Terrorist will find it more difficult to come in, or we find em close to us.

Racism? It is racist to let em in on the premise they are here to be cheap vege and fruit pickers. Why not use em for something greater?
Doesn't respond to what I said about liberty, the fundamental thesis of American democracy, etc. It's also not our place to think for other people; telling them what they do and don't like. It should be up to them to chose if they like the military or not. You also conceed that it would make the military less effective, so there really isn't any benefit to adoping your position, only negative consequences.

The premise of letting them in is giving them an opportunity that they otherwise wouldn't have. We're not saying all immigrants have to work in low paying jobs. My best example (perhaps) is Andrew Carnegie. The very assumption that they only take those jobs is itself racist.

It's up to them if they decide being in the military is "something greater." Many Americans are pacifists. The military isn't something greater to them; it's anathema.

Doesn't respond to what I said about liberty, the fundamental thesis of American democracy, etc. It's also not our place to think for other people; telling them what they do and don't like. It should be up to them to chose if they like the military or not. You also conceed that it would make the military less effective, so there really isn't any benefit to adoping your position, only negative consequences.

The premise of letting them in is giving them an opportunity that they otherwise wouldn't have. We're not saying all immigrants have to work in low paying jobs. My best example (perhaps) is Andrew Carnegie. The very assumption that they only take those jobs is itself racist.

It's up to them if they decide being in the military is "something greater." Many Americans are pacifists. The military isn't something greater to them; it's anathema.

They are not Americans. We have a shortage of troops. It is a good idea. They don't have to join.

What part of "IT'S NOT A FEDERAL ID CARD" don't you understand? What this act does is require states to do something so that their state issued ID card be accepted for federal purposes. The only time you would have to do anything, other than prove you are in the country legally and you are who you say you are, is if your state choosed to not do what the federal government asks. Then, you only need to go get some other form of ID if you want to do things like board commercial planes and such.

Seriously, I really don't give a damn what this act says, I don't believe in the federal government having that kind of power over people. The federal government is ridiculously large as it is, and not in a good way. This is one more slippery slope on the way to some bastardized rightwing communist hybrid, and it's all bad.

And why is it that when Bush says big government, everyone says "How high can we jump for you sir", but when a leftist says big government, for the people's sake, everyone says "No way". That much I will never understand. And I will never condone the federal government growing by inches because it knows that there are those of us out there who would call it on growing by leaps and bounds. This is no different. It is the same slipperly slope. Today its dumb assed I.D. cards, tomorrow its centralized federal rule over your entire life.

And you provided no evidence either :rolleyes:
The first paragraph doesn't mention race or racism, and the second paragraph has nothing to do with the Real ID act.

It's not racist to want to prevent criminals from obtaining legal documents.

See here.Another clause of the REAL ID Act would authorize the secretary of Homeland Security to waive any and all laws (environmental, labor, etc.) as needed to expedite the construction of certain border fences and barriers near San Diego, California.

It seems that prohibiting people from entering your country and then forcibly employing them to expedite that own prohibition is pretty racist.

The first paragraph sets up the second.

The URL is also pretty good on this:
Frankly I am appalled to hear Mr. Sensenbrenner's remarks that "these documents [American-issued DL/IDs] allowed them to blend in and not raise suspicion or concern." This sounds like words from the Nazis during the 1930s, whose paranoid rhetoric eventually led to the rule that required all Jews to wear a yellow star so they would not "blend in and not raise suspicion or concern." His misguided and mean-spirited motives are further apparent when it takes into account that he and his friend Mr. Dreier now want to suspend regular rules to limit amendments and debates on House floor, and slam the bill through the House and then through the Senate in forms of a rider hidden inside an appropriation bill that is unrelated and irrelevant to the topic of the bill. His "ends justify all means, my way or highway" approach is despicable.

Dude, we have to give up our old way of life so that the terrorists can't destroy our way of life.

The only thing that we are giving up are our own civil liberties...if we just left the fuckers alone they would have no reason to bother us

They are not Americans. We have a shortage of troops. It is a good idea. They don't have to join.
*Sigh*

I'm not answering the unwarranted argument again.

Seriously, I really don't give a damn what this act says, I don't believe in the federal government having that kind of power over people. The federal government is ridiculously large as it is, and not in a good way. This is one more slippery slope on the way to some bastardized rightwing communist hybrid, and it's all bad.
You don't care what the act says? That's the whole point... you are arguing against something that you don't know or don't care to know about. This act in now way gives the federal government any more power over people that it doesn't already have. It's simply saying that if states don't do what they are asking, then they can't play ball in the federal's field. Simple as that. If states want to play ball (and let it's citizens go on airplane rides) then they do what is being asked.

And why is it that when Bush says big government, everyone says "How high can we jump for you sir", but when a leftist says big government, for the people's sake, everyone says "No way". That much I will never understand. And I will never condone the federal government growing by inches because it knows that there are those of us out there who would call it on growing by leaps and bounds. This is no different. It is the same slipperly slope. Today its dumb assed I.D. cards, tomorrow its centralized federal rule over your entire life.
Good God. What does this have to do with Bush? Today it isn't dumb assed I.D. cards... this has nothing to do with Big Brother. :rolleyes:

Region Killas']The only thing that we are giving up are our own civil liberties...if we just left the fuckers alone they would have no reason to bother us

Seconded for emphasis!

Region Killas']The only thing that we are giving up are our own civil liberties...if we just left the fuckers alone they would have no reason to bother us

How do you propose to do that? Let them spread thier theocracy around the globe? Yes, I have a problem with the Iraq war, but I do not have a problem going after those who killed 1000's of free people doing business.

See here.

It seems that prohibiting people from entering your country and then forcibly employing them to expedite that own prohibition is pretty racist.

The first paragraph sets up the second.

The URL is also pretty good on this:
BZZZZZ Sorry, try again.

Prohibiting people from entering your country ILLEGALLY is not racist. It's directed at criminals, not at a race. And that part about forcibly employing them is pure bullshit and another scare tactic that has oh so obviously worked on you.

Region Killas']The only thing that we are giving up are our own civil liberties...if we just left the fuckers alone they would have no reason to bother us
Please, tell me one civil liberty we have given up with the Real ID act?

And no, "if we just left the fuckers alone they would have no reason to bother us" is not even close to the truth. You may want to hide your head in the sand, but when your tail feathers get melted off don't come complaining to me that I didn't get fu**ed along with you.

BZZZZZ Sorry, try again.

Prohibiting people from entering your country ILLEGALLY is not racist. It's directed at criminals, not at a race. And that part about forcibly employing them is pure bullshit and another scare tactic that has oh so obviously worked on you.

I was of the understanding that protecting the border was a constitutional authorized act for government. I don't believe the ID is good. Creates a chance for too much bureaucracy. The better idea is to guard the borders.

This act in now way gives the federal government any more power over people that it doesn't already have.

Except for when it does this:

It's simply saying that if states don't do what they are asking, then they can't play ball in the federal's field. Simple as that. If states want to play ball (and let it's citizens go on airplane rides) then they do what is being asked.

I'm sorry, but the federal government penalizing my state because it doesn't "play ball" and institute the Americanized version of the German, "where are your papers" routine sounds a lot like autocracy to me.


Good God. What does this have to do with Bush? Today it isn't dumb assed I.D. cards... this has nothing to do with Big Brother. :rolleyes:

What does it have to do with Bush? Well who the fuck is in office right now?? It's not Clinton, it's not Gore, who the hell do you think it is? Who do you think is the brains behind this?

LoL, I.D. cards have nothing to do with big brother...I.D. card ARE big brother. ><

What's wrong with defending your country? Guard the borders!

::shakes his head in utter disbelief::
Do you have a drivers lisence? Do you have a student ID card from college, a library card, some form of identification?

I guess I have been going on the assumption that you have been arguing against the (non-existant) federal ID card. What Im gathering is that you are arguing against all forms of ID card, because the man will stick it to you if they find out who you are. :headbang:

Bush had nothing to do with this... he didn't sit down one day and say "hey, let's stick it to Great Beer and Food by writing this act. It was proposed and passed by congress... all Bush did was sign off on it as there is not a thing wrong with it.

What's wrong with defending your country? Guard the borders!
There is nothing wrong with guarding our boarders... Im all for it. Go Minutemen.
But it isn't a simple one solution fit's all kinda situation. Guard the boarders, severly punish American companies for hiring illegal immigrants, find and deport all illegal immigrants, re-write our immigration laws/policies to make more sense and let in more of those who wish to enter legally.

BZZZZZ Sorry, try again.

Prohibiting people from entering your country ILLEGALLY is not racist. It's directed at criminals, not at a race. And that part about forcibly employing them is pure bullshit and another scare tactic that has oh so obviously worked on you.
Before you start to act like an arrogant asshole, learn how to think beyond the party line - a skill that has continually, it seems, evaded YOU.

First, prohibiting immigration itself is often racist. See the Chinese Exclusion Act. The United States banned Chinese immigration because they were afraid of the "inferior Chinese" taking their jobs. Rioters in support of the act attacked Chinese communities on the West Coast to prove their seriousness. In that same time period, there were strict quotas on immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe because they were supposedly "inferior" to the Northwestern Europeans. BZZZZZ. Sorry, try again.

Second, saying something is "pure bullshit" require some sort of proof that the thing is, in fact, bullshit. My source (you have yet to provide one) specifically cites one of the provisions of the Real ID act as "allowing the Secretary of Homeland Defense to suspend all laws that inhibit the construction of border fences in the region." That includes labor laws like minimum wage, the right to strike, the right to refuse/quit work, etc. So, I've got textual evidence from the law, and you have...nothing. BZZZZZZ. Sorry, try again.

::shakes his head in utter disbelief::
Do you have a drivers lisence? Do you have a student ID card from college, a library card, some form of identification?

These are STATE ISSUED!

I guess I have been going on the assumption that you have been arguing against the (non-existant) federal ID card. What Im gathering is that you are arguing against all forms of ID card, because the man will stick it to you if they find out who you are. :headbang:

No, I am arguing against mandatory FEDERAL I.D. cards.

Bush had nothing to do with this

Except for when:

... all Bush did was sign off on it as there is not a thing wrong with it.

There is nothing wrong with guarding our boarders... Im all for it. Go Minutemen.
But it isn't a simple one solution fit's all kinda situation. Guard the boarders, severly punish American companies for hiring illegal immigrants, find and deport all illegal immigrants, re-write our immigration laws/policies to make more sense and let in more of those who wish to enter legally.

I have no problem with that. People who wish to come and go freely. I don't think jumping the border is good for either the immigrant or the country he wishes to come to. Screening people who are not Americans is a good idea too. It is a one time act just to make sure your not a killer.

These are STATE ISSUED!



No, I am arguing against mandatory FEDERAL I.D. cards.



Except for when:
There..... is..... (wait for it) NO Federal I.D. cards at issue here. None, nada, zip, zilch.

I think we should start a petition or something...and I'm serious. This whole ID card thing is F#@%ING GAY!

There..... is..... (wait for it) NO Federal I.D. cards at issue here. None, nada, zip, zilch.

Yes, yes I know, state compliance with federal regulations is the neo-con "pc" term for federal I.D. cards, just like "skirmish" is the new term for the war in Iraq. A lovely bit of Orwellian bs this is.

There..... is..... (wait for it) NO Federal I.D. cards at issue here. None, nada, zip, zilch.
I believe he or she is obliquely referencing this:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:3:./temp/~c109ZCXHzY:e56400:

I think we should start a petition or something...and I'm serious. This whole ID card thing is F#@%ING GAY!
Yes, those gay people just love their IDs.

This is the proof from the law itself I've been looking for:

EC. 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, administrative agency, or other entity 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.'.

Before you start to act like an arrogant asshole, learn how to think beyond the party line - a skill that has continually, it seems, evaded YOU.

First, prohibiting immigration itself is often racist. See the Chinese Exclusion Act. The United States banned Chinese immigration because they were afraid of the "inferior Chinese" taking their jobs. Rioters in support of the act attacked Chinese communities on the West Coast to prove their seriousness. In that same time period, there were strict quotas on immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe because they were supposedly "inferior" to the Northwestern Europeans. BZZZZZ. Sorry, try again.

Second, saying something is "pure bullshit" require some sort of proof that the thing is, in fact, bullshit. My source (you have yet to provide one) specifically cites one of the provisions of the Real ID act as "allowing the Secretary of Homeland Defense to suspend all laws that inhibit the construction of border fences in the region." That includes labor laws like minimum wage, the right to strike, the right to refuse/quit work, etc. So, I've got textual evidence from the law, and you have...nothing. BZZZZZZ. Sorry, try again.
Nope, wrong again. Preventing illegal immigration is not, in and of itself racist. You keep trying to make it such. Laws can be racist in origin, no one argues against that. But that isn't the case here. Since this act is directed at all illegal immigrants, not just South American or Mexican illegal immigrants it is not racist.

As for the bullshit comment, I stand by it. What you are suggesting would include the military occupation and annexation of Mexico. After all, "suspend all laws......". Try again.

Nope, wrong again. Preventing illegal immigration is not, in and of itself racist. You keep trying to make it such. Laws can be racist in origin, no one argues against that. But that isn't the case here. Since this act is directed at all illegal immigrants, not just South American or Mexican illegal immigrants it is not racist.

As for the bullshit comment, I stand by it. What you are suggesting would include the military occupation and annexation of Mexico. After all, "suspend all laws......". Try again.
My argument continually is that control of illegal immigration itself can be racist when designed to exclude a particular group. I've provided quotes from two outside sources and even quoted the law itself in order to proves that the law is targeted at immigration from Central and South America. I can't really do anything more to convince you. I mean, I also found a list of organizations opposed to the act. It includes anti-racist ones. And they would sign on why? If they didn't think the act was racially motivated.

You also refuse to acknowledge that there could be motivations not contained in the text, as no one wants to appear overtly racist. Your basis for your "targeting" comments are, well, nothing. My basis is a quote from the bill's sponsor in the url I provided. Again, extra-textual motivations do, in fact, exist.

In fact, it would not justify invading Mexico. Only the Congress and the President have the power to do that under Articles 1 and 2 of the US Constitution, which is not a law. Cannot be overridden. Labor laws are, by definition, laws. Can now be overidden and furthermore this bypassing of democracy can't even by challenged in court. Refer to the quote from the law itself above.

::shakes his head in utter disbelief::
Do you have a drivers lisence? Do you have a student ID card from college, a library card, some form of identification?

I guess I have been going on the assumption that you have been arguing against the (non-existant) federal ID card. What Im gathering is that you are arguing against all forms of ID card, because the man will stick it to you if they find out who you are. :headbang:

Bush had nothing to do with this... he didn't sit down one day and say "hey, let's stick it to Great Beer and Food by writing this act. It was proposed and passed by congress... all Bush did was sign off on it as there is not a thing wrong with it.

The (non-existant) federal ID card is only non-existant because they are making the states pay for and issue it. You've been caught in a little misunderstanding. Far from being harmless, this bill in its very scope and intention, overrides the commerce clause between the Federal and State governments.

Look at it this way; the fed is now telling all states that their liscenses are invalid unless they meet new standards; new standards that are left up to the sole discretion of the Department of Homeland Security. Read section 202(d) of HR 418.

It creates a situation whereby ANY time a state or local government official encounters a card that does not meet these arbitrary standards they must alert federal agents. This doesn't strike you as a overstepping of powers? Just how totalitarian are your beliefs?

The Federal Government does NOT have the right to hijack the state's officers and systems to create an unfunded mandate; its been ruled against repeatedly and there's no way it should fly now.

It IS a national system because all that the states are allowed to do is make the cards that Homeland Security mandates. They would no longer be "state" cards as such, they'd be an extension of the federal government.

You kidsand your 'privacy'. What most people don't seem to realise it that if there was no privacy whatsoever, the world would be a much better place. Governmental corruption, or indeed any sort of corruption, would be impossible. Pointless and often harmful taboos would slowly disappear. Society would be open, and most crime would cease to be cost-effective or indeed meaningful.

The (non-existant) federal ID card is only non-existant because they are making the states pay for and issue it. You've been caught in a little misunderstanding. Far from being harmless, this bill in its very scope and intention, overrides the commerce clause between the Federal and State governments.

Look at it this way; the fed is now telling all states that their liscenses are invalid unless they meet new standards; new standards that are left up to the sole discretion of the Department of Homeland Security. Read section 202(d) of HR 418.

It creates a situation whereby ANY time a state or local government official encounters a card that does not meet these arbitrary standards they must alert federal agents. This doesn't strike you as a overstepping of powers? Just how totalitarian are your beliefs?

The Federal Government does NOT have the right to hijack the state's officers and systems to create an unfunded mandate; its been ruled against repeatedly and there's no way it should fly now.

It IS a national system because all that the states are allowed to do is make the cards that Homeland Security mandates. They would no longer be "state" cards as such, they'd be an extension of the federal government.

Since I posted the JPFO position paper/email on the subject, let's address this "it's not a Federal ID from a diferent perspective:

Is there a Federal Minimum Drinking Age?

The answer is... no, BUT since the Fed blackmails the States with the withholding of the tax dollars that that state "contributed" to the Fed, they comply - ergo, a de-facto minimum drinking age.

The same applies with the new ID scheme. The only readon it is NOT a de-facto national ID/internal air-travel passport is that Montana is refusing (for now) to participate.

Look again at the very real things that could be done with the Real ID as passed. The JPFO may be on the (justified) paranoid side (you would be paranoid too if your history were that of the Euro Jews), but they are pretty adept at weeding out the "worst-case-scenerio"... which, as we know, is usually the best the Fed can hope to accomplish.
(Hey Millinialist X-tians! Can you say "mark of the beast?!?") :rolleyes:

There has to be a better way. to prevent Illegal Immigrant Voter Fraud and Terrorist Infiltration.

I've disliked the Department of Homeland Security since it's creation. It always has had this police-state, big brother, 1984-ish feel about it.

I agree with you.

However, the Democrats are inconsistant in a similar manner:

Terri Schiavo was the states' business.

Abortion is the federal government's business.

Charges of inconsistancy by both sides ring hollow.
actually we beleive that Terry Schiavo was the families business and that abortion is the womans business. Government really doesnt come in anywhere.

The problem is that we will now be required to obtain federal I.D., where as before, all we were required to have was state I.D. I don't have a passport (not rich enough to go on vacation outside the U.S., so what's the point? lol) and I'm not at all interested in acquiring a federal I.D. I shouldn't be required to go get one. My state issued driver's license should be enough.
It's not that simple. From what i've seen, you've bought into the governments BS. now, as easy as you typed your post, the government can say you can't take a train, own a gun, buy ammunition, drive a car, move from state to state, etc. they need no justification or proof. Combine this with the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act which says you can be jailed without trial, lawyer, phone call, or anything and that search and seizures can be done without a warrent or probable cause.
This is the important bit so read carefully.
the government has taken away all your rights in the name of security. whether or not there are terrorists being stopped, they still have you by the nutsack. one bad apple in the government means that you can't say or do anything the government doesn't like because they can take away any and all freedoms you had.
The whole purpose of the Constitution is that whether or not the government is "good" and won't imprison you without a trial, or search your home without a warrent, or take away your right to own a gun, THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO. thats why the bill of rights exists. so that in that oh so unlikely event that theres someone who actually wants to take away our rights in the Oval Office, HE WONT BE ABLE TO DO IT.
it has nothing to do with whether or not the democrats or republicans are good guys or bad guys. NO GOVERNMENT, PARTY, OR PERSON SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO THIS.

My argument continually is that control of illegal immigration itself can be racist when designed to exclude a particular group.
Since the control of illegal immigration is designed to exclude those who are not US citizens who try to enter the country illegally...

DAMN! I guess ALL immigration laws are racist. :rolleyes:

who the hell do you think it is? Who do you think is the brains behind this?. ><
its a coin toss between Karl Rove and Dick Cheney

Since the control of illegal immigration is designed to exclude those who are not US citizens who try to enter the country illegally...

DAMN! I guess ALL immigration laws are racist. :rolleyes:

*Ahem* Read what he said again, before you stick both feet in your mouth.

The person said "Can" not "always will"; try not to have selective hearing. Look at the whole freaking history of the US; we've exculded many different races for a few different reasons.

Everything from the ultra-specific "Chinese exculsion act" to the more subtle "All 2nd floor businesses using water will pay an extra tax in San Fransisco." (This subtle one effectively taxed out of business every Chinese laundry in San Fransisco, but was worded in such a way to be totally innocent-sounding).

You know that lawmakers can create nasty laws that sound innocent. You know that bigots are capable of harming others despite a veneer of civility. And also you know DAMN WELL who this law specifically targets.

There are better ways than this.

actually we beleive that Terry Schiavo was the families business and that abortion is the womans business. Government really doesnt come in anywhere.

Don't repeat the trite party line to me; I also vote Democratic but happen to be capable of self criticism.

It was about where the question of whose business it was should be decided: at the state or at the federal level. Republicans think the states should decide whether a woman has the right to choose because than more of them wouldn't. Democrats take the opposite viewpoint, not for principled reasons about federal jurisdiction, but for practical policy ones.

Saying Terri Schiavo was the family's business is kinda meaningless; who is the family? The husband or the parents? It's a legal question which Democrats wanted the state courts to decide because they would rule in their favor for sure; Republicans vice versa for the same reason.

I've disliked the Department of Homeland Security since it's creation. It always has had this police-state, big brother, 1984-ish feel about it.
Especially the name.

Don't repeat the trite party line to me; I also vote Democratic but happen to be capable of self criticism.

It was about where the question of whose business it was should be decided: at the state or at the federal level. Republicans think the states should decide whether a woman has the right to choose because than more of them wouldn't. Democrats take the opposite viewpoint, not for principled reasons about federal jurisdiction, but for practical policy ones.

Saying Terri Schiavo was the family's business is kinda meaningless; who is the family? The husband or the parents? It's a legal question which Democrats wanted the state courts to decide because they would rule in their favor for sure; Republicans vice versa for the same reason.
its not trite, its what i actually believe. and by "Democrats" i hope you mean the politicians, because i know no regular people who beleive in abortion simply because it may help the party or any reason other than principle. the family is the husband. it always has been the husband. this whole fiasco started with the parents and the politicians said hey you can't do that. so then the government got involved. Democrats say "don't involve the government just let the husband decide"

OK, Medici, from what I can gather, Americans are about to get national ID cards. Many countries in Western Europe have had their citizens carrying ID cards for decades.

Aside from the much-cited protections against terrorism, ID cards can also prove very useful in missing persons cases.
You really have ID cards in Ireland? You must have one?

In Finland (and in many other country) most people have several documents to prove their indentification but it's not compulsory.

I have
-driving lisence (valid for id.)
-passport (valid for id.) One can travel around EU without a passport but THEN one needs a national ID card. I can't understand why anyone would get that because you don't need it for any other purpose. Why not get a passport instead.
-"KELA" card with no picture. With that you get almost all receipt drugs cheaper. You don't have to have it but in that case government won't help you with medical costs.

There are only few cases when I have to prove my indentity with a valid card. When I try to get into bar and they don't believe I'm old enough (same with buying alcohol and cigaretts) and when pay >50€ bills with a card.

Alarmist americans are amusing. Alliterations also.
Wohoo, the evil government you voted for and which represents the people of the US does something so terrible as issuing national id cards. Live in fear! Next you will be like such totalitarian communist/fascist countries as Ireland, Germany, Belgium or Switzerland. :D
I tell you, those sneaky democrats, with their law and order policies... wait, thats the other ones, right?

Region Killas']...if we just left the fuckers alone they would have no reason to bother us

We did and they flew aircraft into three buildings on 911, killing thousands of innocent people. :headbang:

LoL, I.D. cards have nothing to do with big brother...I.D. card ARE big brother. ><

Do you have to show an ID now to fly? Yes. Do you have to have an ID to drive a car? Yes. Do you have to have an ID for school? In many schools, yes. Do you have to have a company ID where you work? In a lot of companies, yes. So, what is the problem?

All this act does is to insure the ID meets certain standards, and if it doesn't it won't be accepted for certain things. Again, if your state doesn't want to comply, it doesn't have to and you can get some other federally approved ID like a passport.

There is nothing wrong with guarding our boarders... Im all for it. Go Minutemen.
But it isn't a simple one solution fit's all kinda situation. Guard the boarders, severly punish American companies for hiring illegal immigrants, find and deport all illegal immigrants, re-write our immigration laws/policies to make more sense and let in more of those who wish to enter legally.

AMEN!

First, prohibiting immigration itself is often racist.

Unless I missed something (and that is possible) no one here is calling for a prohibition on immigration. They are talking about stopping illegal immigration.

Yes, yes I know, state compliance with federal regulations is the neo-con "pc" term for federal I.D. cards, just like "skirmish" is the new term for the war in Iraq. A lovely bit of Orwellian bs this is.

Why do I get the feeling we are having a discussion with an idealistic 13 year old, or a brick wall? :(

My argument continually is that control of illegal immigration itself can be racist when designed to exclude a particular group.

Why part of it is not designed to exclude a particulart group don't you understand? :headbang:

I call BULLSHIT!

We do NOT have to give up our old way of life to stop the terrorists...all we have to do is actually ENFORCE current immigration laws and shore up the borders. We do NOT need a national ID card.

This whole thing smacks of communist totalitarianism/national socialism.

"Your papers, sir?"

'Fascism'?

Look at it this way; the fed is now telling all states that their liscenses are invalid unless they meet new standards; new standards that are left up to the sole discretion of the Department of Homeland Security. Read section 202(d) of HR 418.

No, the feds are NOT telling the states the license is invalid unless it meets the new standards. People can still drive with it if it doesn't. All the fed is doing is saying they will not accept it for proof of identification for federal purposed. The feds have a right to say what they will or will not accept for federal purposes.

There has to be a better way. to prevent Illegal Immigrant Voter Fraud and Terrorist Infiltration.

Ok, so what is it? The real ID law will not prevent all of it but it will help prevent a lot of it.