The RealID Bundling with HR1268
By TheMentor Posted in User Blogs — Comments (6) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Somehow, the RealID bill has not gotten any media attention from either side, but it has passed with a 100-0 vote. The Federal ID system was bundled onto an Emergency Appropriations for the War on Terror and Tsunami Relief bill. Personally, I don't agree with the bundling of bills like this. I feel it is a setup for any politician who chooses to vote against the bill due to the RealID or one of the other clauses. Right now anyone who votes against military spending for the War on Terror or Tsunami relief would pretty much be committing political suicide and can forget about being re-elected. The full text of the bill can be found here. The section that I believed should be questioned is the portion on Improved Security on Drivers' Licenses and Personal Identification Cards. The overall concept of the bill isn't bad at all, it is a measure to make it a little more difficult for illegals to obtain drivers' licenses. I have no problem with this, requiring extra documentation to get a drivers' license, although in NJ we already have a 6 point system of identification to get a drivers' license or really even do anything, that can be found here. The part of this bill that bothers me is this:
(9) A common machine-readable technology, with defined minimum data elements.
As you will see the defined minimum data elements have not yet been defined. When will they be defined, and who will define them? Maybe I'm jumping off the deep end a little bit here, but a National ID system seems a little much, since many states already have competant drivers' license procedures. I'm just a little nervous about the nationally linked RFID chip that would be placed in the new ID's. These are trackable and provide the ability to store information of all sorts. From my understanding, when the national ID's are implemented, you will need to present this when buying a plane ticket, opening a bank account, etc., just like a normal driver's license, except that the fact that you just did that would be stored in a database and could be tracked. I think this might step over the line just a bit into my personal privacy. Right now, my NJ drivers' license serves no other purpose besides its intended purpose: license to driver, and verified identification. I'm not sure I want my bank information, travel plans, etc. monitored federally. I also feel that if the decision is made to monitor for possible terrorist activities that the same thing will happen as has happened to airport security, we are searching/monitoring people who are highly unlikely to be committing terrorist acts, while letting more likely suspects slip by in the name of randomness.
I know it's a little late now, but I'm wondering why this hasn't been covered by any media outlet on either side as far as I can see. Also, shouldn't we be opposed to bundling bills of this sort. Where the overall intention of the bill is good, but a clause is slipped in there that may be a little over the line. Of course no politician who wants to keep his position will vote against a funding of the troops or an effort of humanitarian support, so why not slip something in there that no one will read, because if it was presented separately there would be outrage, I would hope from both sides.
Some of the provisions of the bill are good ideas (like having aliens' licenses expire with their visas). Others, I feel, are overkill and will lead to a lot of problems. There's also the issue of an unfunded mandate. It is after all the federal government which is charged by the Constitution with national defense and the regulation of immigration. Shouldn't the Feds be paying for this? I also wonder how many perfectly law-abiding citizens will get burned by the technicalities in the new law. Not everyone has or can get a birth certificate, due to sloppy record keeping at county health departments over the years. (And I would think that a verified SSN should be adequete since the Social Security Administration itself verifies legal status anyway). Moroever why should this affect license renewals? Once a person is verified as a US citizen once shouldn't that be good forever? It's not like their birth place is going to change. Also, I very much do not like the idea of having all my vital stats and info encoded on one piece of ID or in one database where thieves and hackers can get at it with ease.
If there's still concerns about terrorists getting on airplanes or into federal buildings, fine: let's have a federal ID used for these purposes. I'm not security adverse, I'd be willing to be finger-printed and so forth if they need to be sure I'm not really some Aleks Abu Islam, Master Terror Lord in disguise. But can't we just go back to having driving licenses used for things like driving and check cashing and beer buying and the like?
I was once told that the worst legislation is the stuff that passes 100-0 or close to unanimous. This just continues to be true.
The last couple to pass so overwhelmingly have been the economic disaster Sarbanes-Oxley and the liberty destroying Patriot Act.
Actually there were speeches against it, but you really can't vote against a bill like this. When the re-election time creeps up you'd be targeted as the guy who voted against the troops.
The REAL ID stuff is bad all the way around. Both the idea of it (a national ID card) and the way it was passed (tacked onto a bill that no one can vote against, as stated above).
I have been a life-long Republican, but things like this have gotten me concerned. Patriot Act, REAL ID, who knows what else. As much as I disagree with some of the views of the Libertarian Party, they are looking better all the time.
For at least three years, President Bush's efforts to deal with immigration have been demagouged by people like Michelle Malkin and Tom Tancredo. In essence, they have been demanding the impossible on immigration, and when opponents have raised objections (like whether or not it is possible to deport every single illegal immigrant without unacceptable infringement of civil liberties), they've been demagouged as the "open borders lobby" or worse.
The PATRIOT Act, however, is a whole different thing - in the 1970s we put too many restrictions on the CIA and FBI, and that had to be changed to ensure security. Comparing it to the REAL ID Act is comparing apples and oranges. We can't investigate after Armageddon.
I've known for a long time that the national ID was coming, and dreaded the day. I can understand the national security reasons for it, but that doesn't make me like it any better.