This is a discussion on Real Id - Real Bad: MERGED within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Originally Posted by SelfDefense This measure was designed to disrupt terrorist travel by preventing the use of state issued licenses for Federal identification. As we ...
Employers disregard existing law because they know that there will be no penalty for doing so. That will not change wth implementation of REAL. It will change when the occupant of the white house gets his testicles out of the locked box."Another big plus is that we can have an easier way to mitigate the illegal alien problem. There are already many laws on the books that prohibit employers from hiring illegals. This gives businesses another tool to comply with the law. No ID, no job."
ID cards on this level are a complete enemy to individual liberty. Anyone that supports them should take a long look at the principles of this country being based upon individual freedom. I'd hate to use an overused Ben Franklin quote, but it sure is very applicable in this situation.
...He suggested that "every American citizen" should own a rifle and train with it on firing ranges "at every courthouse." -Chesty Puller
We don't have a good way for employers to check and we don't do a very good job of enforcement. Recently, a meat packing plant in Colorado was raided but I don't think any sanctions were applied to the company. One of the benefits is tha the ID cards will supposedly be tamper proof so they will not be easily couterfeited as social security and driver's licenses. Any measure that reduces the illegal alien problem is a positive move. It may not help much until we build the fencem but I don't see a downside.Don't we already HAVE a way for employers, etc. to check for legal status? This I see like gun control, a way to subjugated the honest citizens. "Your Papers
Then how would I communicate with all you good folks!Keep your tin-foil hat in your sock drawer.
Newt Gingrich has a good speech bouncing around on U-Tube about if American Express ran the Social Security Administration. The problem you accurately pointed out is the enforcement and sanctions/fines against employers. For that we can thank Big Business lobbyists and the gov'mint ears they have.
Just so you know, selling your information in the "third-party" sector is one of the
"smallest big industries" in the world. I personally know people who have moved-on-up from knowing a little bit about computers and laws and applied that information to exploit loop holes. Just somthing to keep in mind when disucussing REAL ID. AKA people know much much much much much much more about you than you might imagine ESPEICALLY if you have used a credit/debit card... oh, thats right.... EVERYoNE! From what sort of TP you perfer to how often you buy booze and in what quantity.
Last edited by SilenceDoGood; December 24th, 2007 at 02:13 AM. Reason: hit post too early.
"A government is like fire, a handy servant, but a dangerous master." -- George Washington
It seems your beef is not with identification media but rather that you have no right to go through life being anonymous.
After reading all those, how about trying to maintain/defend your stance if you think there AREN'T any problems involved with RealID? Pete
The Congress (our Representatives and Senators) passed legislation. They are not 'trying' to do anything.The federal government is trying to force states to turn your drivers license into a national ID.
Nonsensical fear mongering and a hypothesis that does not grade school scrutiny.Unless you tell your state legislator to push back, the Real ID Act will create grave dangers to privacy and impose massive financial burdens without improving national security in the least.
I like the 'without meaningful' debate comment.What that means is that the majority of Congress determined that it was good legislation and no one raised the inane objections the writer desperately fears.Signed into law in May 2005 without meaningful debate, the Real ID Act states that drivers licenses will only be accepted for "federal purposes"-;like accessing planes, trains, national parks, and court houses-;if they conform to certain uniform standards. The law also requires a vast national database linking all of the ID records together.
And this inevitabiity is based on what? Nothing. It is typical for arguments of this type to simply project their fears onto responsible people. It reminds me of the antis argument that their belief that they would be rresponsible with firearms means that all gun owners are a danger. Same argument, smae refutation.Once the IDs and database are in place, their uses will inevitably expand to facilitate a wide range of surveillance activities.
And how has your personal privacy been negatively affected by providing your Social Security number? The answer is that it hasn't. Oooooh, those 'massive databases.' You would think the author was unfamilar with computers. Hey! Maybe we should ban computers because they are so efficient at storing databases and retrieving information. Think of the devious government plots devised by nefarious politicians using computers!Remember, the Social Security number started innocuously enough, but it has become a prerequisite for a host of government services and been coopted by private companies to create massive databases of personal information.
You mean like making sure you are who you say you are? Making sure your visa has not expired? Making sure you are in this country legally? The nerve!A national ID poses similar dangers; for example, because "common machine-readable technology" will be required on every ID, the government and businesses will be able to easily read your private information off the cards in myriad contexts.
Ah, the economic argument. How much did it cost when we were attacked on 9/11? Not just the 3000+ lives lost but the economic impact of the towers being destroyed and the recession the enemy caused. Do you realize that one of the hijackers overstayed his visa but had a Florida drivers license good for six years?Real ID won't just cost you your privacy. The federal government didn't give the states funds to implement the law and overcome its many administrative burdens, so the billions of dollars in costs will be passed down to you in the form of increased DMV fees or taxes.
How much does it cost to give free care to illegals in our emergency rooms? How much does it cost to allow public education to illegals? How much does it cost to have illegals taking the jobs of Americans at lower wages?
Obviously, the author is not familiar with the Real ID Act or its purpose. It will absolutely improve naional security. And it has nothing to do with those already identified as threats, but rather it will prevent terrorists (and illegals) from even acquiring Real ID. And, it is going to be far more difficult to counterfeit than current SS or drivers licenses.And what will you get in return? Not improved national security, because IDs do nothing to stop those who haven't already been identified as threats, and wrongdoers will still be able to create fake documents.
Basically, the author's arguments have no substance and no evidence to support his slippery slope and nefarious deeds examples. In short, the author's arguments have been completely refuted. It is an argument based on emotion, not fact.
Last edited by Scott; December 24th, 2007 at 03:12 PM. Reason: fixed quote tag
http://www.realnightmare.org/news/105/ - (States that have passed legislation opposing REAL ID).
"The Act was not passed through a true democratic process. It was slipped through Congress in May 2005 in a “must-pass” Iraq War/Tsunami relief supplemental bill, as part of a deal reached between the powerful Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R, Wis.) and the Congressional leadership. There was no time for sufficient consideration of the Act and its sweeping implications; in the Senate, there was not even a single hearing held on the Act. The result is that Real ID lacks the legitimacy that comes from having been studied, debated, considered, and directly voted upon by Americans’ elected representatives." ( http://www.realnightmare.org/about/2/ )
"The National Conference of State Legislatures estimates (pdf) that that the cost to the states will be more than $11 billion over five years. This is more than 100 times the $100 million cost that Congress initially estimated. For 2006, $40 million was allocated for start-up costs. No more funding has been allocated, and it is likely that the cost will be shouldered by the public. The Department of Homeland Security has estimated that REAL ID will cost $23.1 billion over 10 years." ( http://epic.org/privacy/id-cards/ )
I really love the way you simply deny the gravity of four of our countries' leading privacy organizations being against this.
You can cherry-pick and denigrate the information if you want, to try to make your case - but the only thing "grade school" in this thread is your attempt to make believe there aren't any problems.
Okay, I'll try not to confuse you with the facts anymore.
Merry Christmas, BTW! Pete
Privacy organizations? I don't recall privacy being a Constitutionally protected right. Perhaps you can point me to the Article or Amendment in which privacy is mentioned.
I also recall La Raza (The Race!) being against Real ID.
And I did not cherry pick any of the arguments. I believe I have addressed every argument and issue raised on the board and in the external articles I read. If the abuses some predict come to pass, I will be the first to stand up against a tyrannical government. I simply don't see any downside to this Real ID and the arguments presented have been less than persuasive.
Yes, Merry Christmas to you, too. We are all blessed!Merry Christmas, BTW! Pete
Just as a point of interest, Sensenbrenner was House Judiciary Chairman when this little episode took place during the 'patriot' act re-authorization - he's still on that committee (not the Chairman anymore), as well as a member of The Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, as well as a member of The Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property) - thus, the "powerful" reference:
Little more background here: http://wisc5thcddems.com/Sensenbrenner.aspx
Count me as one of the "majority" who thinks this is a very bad idea :)
"...trying to get a long gun into play while someone is all over you like a monkey eating a cupcake is not very conducive to good survival techniques." ~Bark'n