Lindsey Grahm wants National ID

[Political Junky]

We have 13 million illegals already here. Capturing and deporting them is like herding cats. Requiring all new hires to show an ID with some biometric capability will keep those illegals from being hired. If someone hires someone without ID...send them to jail

You don't need the Real ID in order to do that. They'll just find a way to hack these new biometric IDs too eventually. People already forge passports.

Most of you aren't old enough to remember the anti-illegal-immigration rules imposed in the Carter administration. Every employer was required to have three positive forms of ID on file in the personnel file of every new hire--birth certificate or equivalent, driver's license or equivalent ID, and a utility bill or equivalent with your name and address on it.

A thriving cottage industry producing bogus documents to use for ID sprang up immediately.

But, hiring legal people who needed some time to locate the produce the documents, it was a real pain for us employers who needed somebody to go to work right away and we quickly fell into the habit of letting the requirement slide for a bit. Then a lot. And within a year or two, nobody was bothering any more.

Any law is enforceable only if there is a high degree of voluntary compliance. It is almost impossible to enforce laws when everybody is breaking them.

And it makes it almost futile to try to go by the book when the government refuses to enforce the law. I have encountered numerous illegals who were using a different name and a new made up social security number and a new fictiitious address each time they went to work somewhere, but they were never reported or even seriously questioned. They breezed through the system if they had a liability claim, work comp claim, or applied for social services. Law enforcement is often ordered to not ask about citizenship.

The census form my household recently completed did not ask if we were U.S. citizens.

In my opinion, a national ID card would be used to track and possibly discipline citizens and would be very unlikely used to identify and deal with illegals.

And then Reagan gave amnesty to millions of illegals.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Reaganites conveniently try to forget that.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

It's important to understand that when Republicans are screaming and ranting that "government" is taking over their lives, they aren't yelling about religious extremist right wing government. They aren't screaming for rights for everyone. They don't care about "equality" for everyone.

They're telling us what they want when they say, "You are with us or with the terrorists". You see, if you aren't extreme right wing, you are one of them, a terrorist.

Republicans don't want "gay rights".

Republcians are against "women's rights".

The Confederate Republican Party certainly doesn't care about "civil rights".

It's why they turn everything into a fight for "morals and values". For Republicans, it's "us good" and "them bad". They just use the Bible because it's the closest thing to their "world view". Kill the gays, keep women in the kitchen. The righteous will "rule" and they already know, they ARE the righteous.

Republicans believe in an "elitist" system. They have one set of rules for the "masses" and another for their leadership.

So the next time you hear a Republican shout, "We want our country back", understand, it's NOT just a phrase or just random words. They mean it. And if you hear the sound of a "lock and load" the next time they shout that phrase, "Duck".

Uh-oh. Somebody has been puffin on the Pineapple Express again.

 

[Foxfyre]

You don't need the Real ID in order to do that. They'll just find a way to hack these new biometric IDs too eventually. People already forge passports.

Most of you aren't old enough to remember the anti-illegal-immigration rules imposed in the Carter administration. Every employer was required to have three positive forms of ID on file in the personnel file of every new hire--birth certificate or equivalent, driver's license or equivalent ID, and a utility bill or equivalent with your name and address on it.

A thriving cottage industry producing bogus documents to use for ID sprang up immediately.

But, hiring legal people who needed some time to locate the produce the documents, it was a real pain for us employers who needed somebody to go to work right away and we quickly fell into the habit of letting the requirement slide for a bit. Then a lot. And within a year or two, nobody was bothering any more.

Any law is enforceable only if there is a high degree of voluntary compliance. It is almost impossible to enforce laws when everybody is breaking them.

And it makes it almost futile to try to go by the book when the government refuses to enforce the law. I have encountered numerous illegals who were using a different name and a new made up social security number and a new fictiitious address each time they went to work somewhere, but they were never reported or even seriously questioned. They breezed through the system if they had a liability claim, work comp claim, or applied for social services. Law enforcement is often ordered to not ask about citizenship.

The census form my household recently completed did not ask if we were U.S. citizens.

In my opinion, a national ID card would be used to track and possibly discipline citizens and would be very unlikely used to identify and deal with illegals.

And then Reagan gave amnesty to millions of illegals.

Yes he did. As did Carter to some extent with the addition of rigid immigration enforcement as previously described. But, it wasn't enforced, and so illegals continued to come into the country. So there were, if I remember right, an estimated 3 million illegals in the country at the time Reagan provided amnesty on condition that the immigration laws be rigidly enforced. But Reagan's administration was no more effective in enforcing those immigration laws than Carter was.

And now we have 12 to 20 million illegals in the country and they are talking amnesty again and then rigidly enforcing the immigration laws.

Any idiot should be able to see what the illegals know. The USA has a huge flashing neon sign hanging overhead saying come on in brothers and if you can just lay low for a bit, they'll let you stay forever.

 

[xsited1]

That's why the Republican Party has lost so many supporters and lost Congress and the Presidency. However, people who vote for Democrats seem to tolerate intrusive government as long as they get their government hand-outs.

Government hand-outs go out by the right too.

Reading comprehension: You're doing it wrong.

(But I get the fact that you're just trolling, and I applaud you for your superior trolling abilities. )

 

[xsited1]

That's why the Republican Party has lost so many supporters and lost Congress and the Presidency. However, people who vote for Democrats seem to tolerate intrusive government as long as they get their government hand-outs.

I didn't see too many so-called conservatives and Republicans in the midwest complaining about all of the farm subsidies they were receiving from the Bush administration.

If they don't, they're not really conservatives, are they.

 

[rdean]

That's why the Republican Party has lost so many supporters and lost Congress and the Presidency. However, people who vote for Democrats seem to tolerate intrusive government as long as they get their government hand-outs.

I didn't see too many so-called conservatives and Republicans in the midwest complaining about all of the farm subsidies they were receiving from the Bush administration.

If they don't, they're not really conservatives, are they.

If the entire US were made up of nothing but "farming communities", then you wouldn't need much of a government.

 

[Immanuel]

Graham really needs to switch to the party that likes intrusive government.

That's a multiple choice question these days, Si. They want control in different ways - maybe - but the end result is the same.

Agreed. For the moment, the Dems want intrusive government more, IMO.

Party reform - Tea Party.

That is only because the Republicans have no power at all. Give them power and things will of course change.

Immie

 

[Political Junky]

That's a multiple choice question these days, Si. They want control in different ways - maybe - but the end result is the same.

Agreed. For the moment, the Dems want intrusive government more, IMO.

Party reform - Tea Party.

That is only because the Republicans have no power at all. Give them power and things will of course change.

Immie

Like they did for the recent years when the republicans had the presidency, majorities in congress, and the supreme court?

 

[rdean]

That's a multiple choice question these days, Si. They want control in different ways - maybe - but the end result is the same.

Agreed. For the moment, the Dems want intrusive government more, IMO.

Party reform - Tea Party.

That is only because the Republicans have no power at all. Give them power and things will of course change.

Immie

We saw what they did with that power:

Two wars

Trillion dollar drug bill

Failed economy

No bid contracts

Spying on American citizens

Ravaged infrastructure

Companies moving overseas.

2.5 trillion dollar tax cut for the rich during a time of war

-------------Can we afford to let the Republcians "finish the job"?

 

[Immanuel]

Agreed. For the moment, the Dems want intrusive government more, IMO.

Party reform - Tea Party.

That is only because the Republicans have no power at all. Give them power and things will of course change.

Immie

Like they did for the recent years when the republicans had the presidency, majorities in congress, and the supreme court?

Yes, need I remind you of the Patriot Act? NSA Wiretapping? Minor intrusions upon our liberties like that.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Agreed. For the moment, the Dems want intrusive government more, IMO.

Party reform - Tea Party.

That is only because the Republicans have no power at all. Give them power and things will of course change.

Immie

Like they did for the recent years when the republicans had the presidency, majorities in congress, and the supreme court?

Agreed. For the moment, the Dems want intrusive government more, IMO.

Party reform - Tea Party.

That is only because the Republicans have no power at all. Give them power and things will of course change.

Immie

We saw what they did with that power:

Two wars

Trillion dollar drug bill

Failed economy

No bid contracts

Spying on American citizens

Ravaged infrastructure

Companies moving overseas.

2.5 trillion dollar tax cut for the rich during a time of war

-------------Can we afford to let the Republcians "finish the job"?

Are you two having problems with your reading comprehension tonight?

I said that if you give the Republicans power, they will want a more intrusive government. Did that escape you there? Could it have been any more clearer?

Immie

 

[xotoxi]

How about securing our borders first?

And thieves will still commit identity theft, if fact I'll wager it gets worse because no one fucks up a simple thing like the government.

We have 13 million illegals already here. Capturing and deporting them is like herding cats. Requiring all new hires to show an ID with some biometric capability will keep those illegals from being hired. If someone hires someone without ID...send them to jail
It will only take a few for the employers to get the idea. Once the jobs dry up....illegals go home

Identity theft is easy if all you need is a credit card number and a SSN. Encrypt the ID card and ID theft becomes impossible

Here's an idea.

No birth certificate, no drivers' license. No drivers' license no job. No work for illegals, illegals will leave.

Are you saying that you do not want to allow foreign graduate students the ability to drive legally?

 

[rdean]

That is only because the Republicans have no power at all. Give them power and things will of course change.

Immie

Like they did for the recent years when the republicans had the presidency, majorities in congress, and the supreme court?

That is only because the Republicans have no power at all. Give them power and things will of course change.

Immie

We saw what they did with that power:

Two wars

Trillion dollar drug bill

Failed economy

No bid contracts

Spying on American citizens

Ravaged infrastructure

Companies moving overseas.

2.5 trillion dollar tax cut for the rich during a time of war

-------------Can we afford to let the Republcians "finish the job"?

Are you two having problems with your reading comprehension tonight?

I said that if you give the Republicans power, they will want a more intrusive government. Did that escape you there? Could it have been any more clearer?

Immie

Nothing wrong with reiterating what they did with that power when they had it before.

The white wing likes to go on about how they never had the majorities like the Democrats enjoy. Of course, they had two methods that rendered that unimportant.

First, they said Democrats were unpatriotic (with us or with the terrorists - particularly effective when we are at war)

Second, they used reconciliation. They only have a problem when Democrats use it.

 

[kyzr]

Are you two having problems with your reading comprehension tonight?

I said that if you give the Republicans power, they will want a more intrusive government. Did that escape you there? Could it have been any more clearer?

Immie

Nothing wrong with reiterating what they did with that power when they had it before.

The white wing likes to go on about how they never had the majorities like the Democrats enjoy. Of course, they had two methods that rendered that unimportant.

First, they said Democrats were unpatriotic (with us or with the terrorists - particularly effective when we are at war)

Second, they used reconciliation. They only have a problem when Democrats use it.

I'm not seeing the black/white differences between the two flavors of DC crooks. If its not freezers full of cash, its backroom deals, billions to ACORN the voter fraud experts, stupid policies like C+T and healthcare we can't pay for.

If you thought that the GOP used reconciliation before, just wait until 2010 and 2012. Filibuster is "dead". 51 Senate votes is the new normal.

 

[Oddball]

Graham really needs to switch to the party that likes intrusive government.

Because the Patriot Act was put forth by a Democrat President and Congress.



Both parties like intrusive government, get with reality.

Actually, the USAPATRIOT act is an amalgamation of numerous police state snoop programs that the Clinton regime wanted, which republicans decried as being overreaching.

 

[rdean]

Are you two having problems with your reading comprehension tonight?

I said that if you give the Republicans power, they will want a more intrusive government. Did that escape you there? Could it have been any more clearer?

Immie

Nothing wrong with reiterating what they did with that power when they had it before.

The white wing likes to go on about how they never had the majorities like the Democrats enjoy. Of course, they had two methods that rendered that unimportant.

First, they said Democrats were unpatriotic (with us or with the terrorists - particularly effective when we are at war)

Second, they used reconciliation. They only have a problem when Democrats use it.

I'm not seeing the black/white differences between the two flavors of DC crooks. If its not freezers full of cash, its backroom deals, billions to ACORN the voter fraud experts, stupid policies like C+T and healthcare we can't pay for.

If you thought that the GOP used reconciliation before, just wait until 2010 and 2012. Filibuster is "dead". 51 Senate votes is the new normal.

Billions to ACORN? How many billions?

Healthcare we can't pay for? Actually, what we can't pay for are American citizens using the "emergency room" as their "primary" source of health care at more than 10 times the cost.

Why do you guys persist is speaking such nonsense?

The best possible solution would have been the "single payer" system, but the Republicans scared the shit out of the American people. The nerve. They did the same over Iraq. And it's how they got support for their trillion dollar gift to the drug companies. They do Bin Laden's work for him.

 

[Si modo]

Graham really needs to switch to the party that likes intrusive government.

Because the Patriot Act was put forth by a Democrat President and Congress.



Both parties like intrusive government, get with reality.

You obviously are still struggling with that reading comprehension issue you so often demonstrate. Somehow you think what I said means the GOP doesn't vote in big government. They just don't do it as much as your favorite party does.

How is the Adored One, Obama, doing on that Patriot Act, by the way, doggie?

 

[Si modo]

That is only because the Republicans have no power at all. Give them power and things will of course change.

Immie

Like they did for the recent years when the republicans had the presidency, majorities in congress, and the supreme court?

Yes, need I remind you of the Patriot Act? NSA Wiretapping? Minor intrusions upon our liberties like that.

Immie

Agreed. But, let's be factual. NSA wiretapping was under Carter.

By the authority vested in me as President by Sections 102 and
104 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.
1802 and 1804), in order to provide as set forth in that Act (this
chapter) for the authorization of electronic surveillance for
foreign intelligence purposes, it is hereby ordered as follows:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General
is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
intelligence information without a court order, but only if the
Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

1-102. Pursuant to Section 102(b) of the Foreign Intelligence Act
of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(b)), the Attorney General is authorized to
approve applications to the court having jurisdiction under Section
103 of that Act (50 U.S.C. 1803) to obtain orders for electronic
surveillance for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence
information.

1-103. Pursuant to Section 104(a)(7) of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1804(a)(7)), the following
officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national
security or defense, is designated to make the certifications
required by Section 104(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications
to conduct electronic surveillance:

(a) Secretary of State.

(b) Secretary of Defense.

(c) Director of Central Intelligence.

(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

(e) Deputy Secretary of State.

(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense.

(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.

None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that
capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above
certifications, unless that official has been appointed by the
President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

1-104. Section 2-202 of Executive Order No. 12036 (set out under
section 401 of this title) is amended by inserting the following at
the end of that section: ''Any electronic surveillance, as defined
in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, shall be
conducted in accordance with that Act as well as this Order.''.

1-105. Section 2-203 of Executive Order No. 12036 (set out under
section 401 of this title) is amended by inserting the following at
the end of that section: ''Any monitoring which constitutes
electronic surveillance as defined in the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be conducted in accordance with that
Act as well as this Order.''.

Jimmy Carter.

[Executive Order 12139]

Obama still keeps the Patriot Act.

 

[rdean]

Like they did for the recent years when the republicans had the presidency, majorities in congress, and the supreme court?

Yes, need I remind you of the Patriot Act? NSA Wiretapping? Minor intrusions upon our liberties like that.

Immie

Agreed. But, let's be factual. NSA wiretapping was under Carter.

By the authority vested in me as President by Sections 102 and
104 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.
1802 and 1804), in order to provide as set forth in that Act (this
chapter) for the authorization of electronic surveillance for
foreign intelligence purposes, it is hereby ordered as follows:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General
is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
intelligence information without a court order, but only if the
Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

1-102. Pursuant to Section 102(b) of the Foreign Intelligence Act
of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(b)), the Attorney General is authorized to
approve applications to the court having jurisdiction under Section
103 of that Act (50 U.S.C. 1803) to obtain orders for electronic
surveillance for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence
information.

1-103. Pursuant to Section 104(a)(7) of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1804(a)(7)), the following
officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national
security or defense, is designated to make the certifications
required by Section 104(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications
to conduct electronic surveillance:

(a) Secretary of State.

(b) Secretary of Defense.

(c) Director of Central Intelligence.

(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

(e) Deputy Secretary of State.

(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense.

(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.

None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that
capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above
certifications, unless that official has been appointed by the
President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

1-104. Section 2-202 of Executive Order No. 12036 (set out under
section 401 of this title) is amended by inserting the following at
the end of that section: ''Any electronic surveillance, as defined
in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, shall be
conducted in accordance with that Act as well as this Order.''.

1-105. Section 2-203 of Executive Order No. 12036 (set out under
section 401 of this title) is amended by inserting the following at
the end of that section: ''Any monitoring which constitutes
electronic surveillance as defined in the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be conducted in accordance with that
Act as well as this Order.''.

Jimmy Carter.

[Executive Order 12139]

Obama still keeps the Patriot Act.

the Attorney General
is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
intelligence information without a court order,

the Attorney General is authorized to
approve applications to the court having jurisdiction under Section
103 of that Act (50 U.S.C. 1803) to obtain orders for electronic
surveillance for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence
information.

--------------------------------

You're reading something into this that just isn't there. Law enforcement can wire tap now, but they need to give the court a "reason" and it better be a good reason. This is nothing like the Patriot Act, but good try.