Homeland Security to press ahead with Real ID

[Taomon]

Bullshit. I'm not asking for the government to create something new in order to convenience me. I'm stating that I don't have a problem with taking something the State and Feds already do and putting it under one umbrella. But hey if you don't want to live with that, then at least have the logical consistency to respect a State's right to issue a driver's license to illegals whenever they choose to do so.

Um, I never said a State cannot or should not issue licenses according to their own laws and constituency. But, whatever.

Do you have a financial portfolio? What is the first rule of thumb about creating a nest egg for the future? Do not have all of your eggs in one basket.

Varying levels of State and Federal licensing and such provides at least one minimal safeguard...a checks and balance because if the Feds want your DMV information, they have to contact that state agency.

We have already lost one check/balance...namely the FISA court. Bush has superceded that. So why allow them to consolidate?

 

[Dirt McGirt]

What if getting a job required you to have your card or microchip scanned by the new employer who does an on the spot background check?

What if political affiliation, known political statements and law enforcement rankings of your politics became part of that record? What if the government decided that your politics were a minor threat and flagged your records?

And what if your potential employer could not or would not hire you based on that information. All of your information; financial records, books bought & read, licenses owned, job history, religious affiliation, medical records, education, and so on all consolidated into one Government agency, cataloged and ranked according to a perceived civil obedience...all on one card or microchip.

That is how that agency could control whether or not you work, can buy food, clothes or housing, can get an education and so on.

Hey, what if we create cybernetic robots and they turned on us and forced us to go underground and then started manufacturing our bodies for a primary energy source?

A lot of "what ifs" in that last post.

 

[Taomon]

Hey, what if we create cybernetic robots and they turned on us and forced us to go underground and then started manufacturing our bodies for a primary energy source?

A lot of "what ifs" in that last post.

Fine Dirt, do nothing because there are too many what ifs. You would rather that scenarios like mine become reality first before you act...oh yeah, it would be too fucking late by then my brother.

The reason I work in what ifs is that we must guard against them so that what ifs do not become remember whens.

To protect freedom does not mean to sit and do nothing, or rely on candidates who we all know are corrupt. Not one candidate can be counted on to defend our nation against the worst terrorist of all...lobbyists and banks.

 

[eots]

Hey, what if we create cybernetic robots and they turned on us and forced us to go underground and then started manufacturing our bodies for a primary energy source?

A lot of "what ifs" in that last post.

except the what ifs in the article are reasoned and a very real possibilty..where as your example is as usual childish and stupid

 

[Taomon]

except the what ifs in the article are reasoned and a very real possibilty..where as your example is as usual childish and stupid

Exactly (and thanks)

 

[Dirt McGirt]

except the what ifs in the article are reasoned and a very real possibilty..where as your example is as usual childish and stupid

Ah the resident nutjob comes to validate Taomon's arguments. I'm sure your credibility has increased his confidence in his position, eots.

 

[Taomon]

Ah the resident nutjob comes to validate Taomon's arguments. I'm sure your credibility has increased his confidence in his position, eots.

Eots opinion is just as valid as yours and mine. I already felt validated. Your argument is weak.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Eots opinion is just as valid as yours and mine. I already felt validated. Your argument is weak.

My argument is real. Yours is based on a slippery slope of things that would not happen even if Fed and State licenses merged under one umbrella. I've already stated that I'd draw the line at microchips and monitoring the purchases of goods.

 

[Taomon]

My argument is real. Yours is based on a slippery slope of things that would not happen even if Fed and State licenses merged under one umbrella. I've already stated that I'd draw the line at microchips and monitoring the purchases of goods.

Your argument is real to you. You wait until things happen then react. I evaluate what is happening, historical instances of similar events, and extrapolate on possible outcomes.

So there is no fire in your house. Why inconvenience yourself with fire insurance or waste money on fire extinguishers and smoke detectors? That is your argument!

 

[Angel Heart]

Looks like I'll have to be getting a passport. Oregon is looking at optioning out of it. Means in order to fly, I'll have to have a passport. UGH.

Such a pain and will achieve nothing more than more red tape. Nothing like a few more cogs in the bureaucracy of the US government.

 

[manu1959]

anyone know how many states already comply.....anyone know the grounds on why some states are objecting?....

 

[Dirt McGirt]

LMAO. ScreamingEagle supports the ACLU's position.

"Members of Congress knew two years ago that if Real ID were openly debated, the American people would have rejected it. Whether it’s two amendments or 200, it won’t change the growing wisdom that Real ID is a real nightmare. It’s a national ID that will invade our privacy, threaten national security and make all of us less safe. The King and Price amendments ignore the growing state rebellion against Real ID, and Congress should vote against these amendments and any future amendments mandating Real ID." - Timothy Sparapani, Legislative Counsel for the ACLU Washington Legislative Office.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/29780prs20070518.html

 

[ScreamingEagle]

LMAO. ScreamingEagle supports the ACLU's position.

"Members of Congress knew two years ago that if Real ID were openly debated, the American people would have rejected it. Whether it’s two amendments or 200, it won’t change the growing wisdom that Real ID is a real nightmare. It’s a national ID that will invade our privacy, threaten national security and make all of us less safe. The King and Price amendments ignore the growing state rebellion against Real ID, and Congress should vote against these amendments and any future amendments mandating Real ID." - Timothy Sparapani, Legislative Counsel for the ACLU Washington Legislative Office.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/29780prs20070518.html

Even those shitheads get it right occasionally.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Even those shitheads get it right occasionally.

LMAO. No disrespect, I just wanted to see you say it.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

anyone know how many states already comply.....anyone know the grounds on why some states are objecting?....

Some states objecting? More like almost ALL of them.

See post #10 on page 1 - it outlines specifically the objections for Maine and Utah.

 

[indago]

manu1959 wrote:

anyone know how many states already comply..... anyone know the grounds on why some states are objecting?

CNN — LOU DOBBS TONIGHT — Aired February 26, 2007 - 18:00 ET

Many states are still unhappy over mandatory federal standards for issuing driver's licenses. The Department of Homeland Security is expected to issue new guidelines this week, and states have just over a year to put them in place.

Now, Jeanne Meserve tells us why states are putting up resistance to the law.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I definitely don't think this is going to work.

JEANNE MESERVE, CNN HOMELAND SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voice over): But it does. The prankster goes into the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles and comes out with a valid driver's license, silly picture and all.

From a security perspective, it is not a laughing matter. After 9/11, Congress mandated tough new federal standards for driver's licenses called Real ID. States are supposed to implement them in little more than a year.

Every one of the 245 million license holders in the United States will have to reapply in person with documents that prove they are citizens or legal residents. The states predict it will swamp motor vehicle offices, creating long waits. Currently, each state issues licenses following their own security standards and with their own features.

KAREN JOHNSON, ARIZONA STATE SENATE: They have no business in our state's business. And that's what they're doing.

MESERVE: Arizona state senator Karen Johnson is sponsoring legislation saying her state will not comply. She says Real ID would invade privacy by creating a large national database of driver information.

JOHNSON: I mean, Homeland Security is the one that's going to be running this database? Give me a break.

MESERVE: Arizona is one of 24 states that has passed or proposed legislation opposing Real ID. The big complaint, the cost — an estimated $11 billion over five years. The biggest expense is likely to be a requirement that states verify the authenticity of identity documents used to get a license.

DAVID QUAM, NATIONAL GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION: It's verification that not even the federal government can complete for its own employees.

MESERVE: Rody Marshall just got his license renewed in Phoenix in 20 minutes. If Real ID lengthens his wait, it's fine with him.

RODY MARSHALL, PHOENIX RESIDENT: I don't think everybody should just automatically get a driver's license. If it takes — if it takes a day of your time, that's what it takes.

MESERVE: Homeland Security is taking an even harder line.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: If we don't get it done now, someone is going to be sitting around in three or four years explaining to the next 9/11 Commission why we didn't do it.

MESERVE: Because the next person who tries to get a driver's license may want to do harm to the country, not just get a laugh.

Jeanne Meserve, CNN, Phoenix.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MESERVE: As you mentioned, Kitty, the Department of Homeland security is expected to issue long-awaited regulations perhaps this week that will lay out the specifics of what states have to do to comply with Real ID. Some are guessing that will fuel the uproar rather than dampen it — Kitty.

PILGRIM: Jeanne, what are the consequences to the states of not complying with this law?

MESERVE: Well, what the law says, if you do not comply, then your licenses can't be used as federal IDs. That means you can't use them to get into federal buildings, you can't use them to board airplanes. So consequence for the citizens.

PILGRIM: Yes. It seems like it.

Thanks very much.

Jeanne Meserve.

 

[indago]

Lisa Sylvester reported 9 February 2007:

SYLVESTER: What they say — what opponents say is what they are afraid is they don't want to see a national ID. In fact, Sensenbrenner is against a national ID as well, and his opponents say — believe that this program is essentially one step away, that it would create a national database — it would not create a national database. But they are concerned that it would, and that would essentially — it would open up the door, if you — so to speak, and would allow people access to this information, essentially keeping and tracking and monitoring Americans in this country.

Congressman James Sensenbrenner noted 7 February 2007:

REP. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, (R) WISCONSIN: Well, they say it's a national driver's license and it's not. The Real ID Act, Lou, actually prevents a national ID card, because if we didn't use state driver's licenses to prove our identity, then there would be pressure on the federal government to have all of us carry a national ID, just like they do in continental Europe. That would be a bad move. And I've been strongly opposed to having a national ID card for a whole number of reasons.

Senator Charles Schumer noted 31 January 2007:

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: We propose every American, citizen, legal immigrant gets a non-forgeable employment card, a national employment card. It has a little chit in there that you can't forge that matches the retina of your eye. Every employer — every employer would have to swipe the card through a little machine like a credit card machine, when someone applied for a job who would have their picture on it, of course.

Reported 26 January 26 2007:

ROSEMARY JENKS, NUMBERSUSA: There really is no opt out with federal law. If they decide not to comply, then the result is that the people who get driver's licenses from that state will not be permitted to use their licenses for certain purposes like getting on an airplane.

PILGRIM: The new rules would say, unless a person had a driver's license issued with the new standard, a person could not board a plane, enter a federal building or enter a nuclear facility.

If this isn't a national ID card, I don't know what would be. Granted, we do need a secure system in this country to weed out those who do not belong here, but the federal government has no business entering the driver license field. Years ago, driving an automobile on the highways was considered — and recognized by legal authorities — to be a right, and that those who operated a motor vehicle on the roadways for profit had to be licensed by the State for this purpose, and deemed to be a privilege. Gradually, the natural person and the artificial person were melded together into the law, and now the State won't recognize that there is a distinct difference between the two, and driving on the roadways is now granted by the State as a privilege, regardless the difference. The federal government has seized upon this abortion, and acted upon it to the detriment of the inhabitants of the States, and it has come to this.

If it waddles like a National ID, and quacks like a National ID, well...

 

[indago]

ROSEMARY JENKS, NUMBERSUSA: There really is no opt out with federal law. If they decide not to comply, then the result is that the people who get driver's licenses from that state will not be permitted to use their licenses for certain purposes like getting on an airplane.

Now, who in their right mind would be driving their car on an airplane?

 

[Taomon]

Senator Charles Schumer noted 31 January 2007:
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: We propose every American, citizen, legal immigrant gets a non-forgeable employment card, a national employment card. It has a little chit in there that you can't forge that matches the retina of your eye. Every employer — every employer would have to swipe the card through a little machine like a credit card machine, when someone applied for a job who would have their picture on it, of course.

Sound familiar Dirt? Not much to extrapolate any type of data being added to that to keep you or I from getting specific jobs (i.e. good pay, benefits, etc).

 

[doniston]

You don't get it.

I carry a drivers license from my STATE, and I have a SS card with my important documents at home. That's IT.

If you have a passport, because you travel abroad, then that's your perogative.

We don't need the fed's issuing us a mandatory ID card out of "convenience". It's a violation of privacy, and too much control for the federal government.

Questions:

Does that drivers license have an ID Picture on it so the person veiwiing knows it is you? If not, it it is not definitive ID. Personally, I would include a thuimpprint as added security.

As for the rest,---- what privacy???? SS numbers prove nothing, neither do unverifiable Green cards.