National ID May Have Killed Immigration Bill 481
News.com reports that the immigration reform bill bouncing around in the Senate for the last few weeks has finally been defeated. The site speculates that, perhaps, one of the reasons it was finally defeated was a measure intended to expand the use of Real ID cards. If passed, the bill would have effectively turned the Real ID system into a National ID card. "The American Civil Liberties Union, another longtime foe of Real ID, said the Real ID requirements were a 'poison pill that derailed this bill, and any future legislation should be written knowing the American people won't swallow it.' Another section of the immigration bill would have given $1.5 billion to state officials to pay for Real ID compliance. Even if the immigration bill is goes nowhere, however, the Real ID Act is still in effect. It says, starting on May 11, 2008, Americans will need a federally-approved ID card to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments or take advantage of nearly any government service." As we've discussed before, several states have rebelled against the implementation of Real ID.
papers please (Score:5, Insightful)
You have got to be kidding... (Score:5, Insightful)
2) Aside from point 1), this makes no sense. The immigration bill collapsed, the Real ID is going through and that somehow proves that Real ID is politically untenable?!?
And as stated before ... (Score:5, Insightful)
This does nothing to stop terrorists or terrorism.
NOT true (Score:5, Insightful)
Did I miss a day of school? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but this bit of the synopsis confused me:
If passed, the bill would have effectively turned the Real ID system into a National ID card.
I was under the impression that the Real ID system all by itself was intended as a de facto national ID card. What am I missing?
Unfortunately... (Score:5, Insightful)
"The American Civil Liberties Union, another longtime foe of Real ID, said the Real ID requirements were a 'poison pill that derailed this bill, and any future legislation should be written knowing the American people won't swallow it."
The emphasis is mine.
*sigh*
Regards.
ID for Gov't Services (Score:5, Insightful)
What I don't understand is why people get so up in arms about requiring people to prove that they are eligible for the services for which they are applying.
Why do so many people advocate the abuse of services that could otherwise go to deserving, eligible American citizens?
Vox Populi killed the bill (Score:5, Insightful)
Conservative, liberal, and moderate voters all thought this was a poor idea - not some minor amendment to this stinking legislation.
---
but make sure that the last line
Generated by SlashdotRndSig [snop.com] via GreaseMonkey [mozdev.org]
The National ID did not do it... (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Requiring that illegal immigrants go back to their country of origin to apply for the Z visa
2) Requiring that illegal immigrants had no felonies on their record
3) Requiring a lengthier background check, rather than the default 24-hour 'status adjustment' if the background check wasn't finished
The discussion has been very heated, particularly here in California, where talk show hosts have been rallying their listeners for the past few months to contact our local senators and pretty much tell them that their job is on the line if they passed this bill. California is probably the one state where illegal immigration is pretty much out of control, and the public is pretty passionate about it, because we live with it and see it first-hand.
Trust me, the National ID card was barely mentioned in any of the discussions here; enforcement of the existing laws and tougher penalties for businesses that knowingly hire illegals were the main arguments.
Honestly, I wish that Senator Kennedy moved to California and lived here for a good 6 months, so he could see how out-of-control things really are. Maybe then he'd get back in touch with reality and would stop his ignorant rhetoric about "Gestapo tactics" and whatnot.
Re:What's wrong with a national ID card? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:NOT true (Score:5, Insightful)
There already is a national ID. (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, as has been mentioned earlier, the ACLU trying to spin this as a rejection of RealID is stupid beyond belief (this got posted as a story how???). The right hates is because there's too much amnesty, the left hates it because there's not enough amnesty, and most of the people in the middle hate it because it took a reasonably good idea and turned it into an unprincipled pork-fest as senators were bought and sold with pet projects in their districts. In other words, politics as usual.
Re:What's wrong with a national ID card? (Score:5, Insightful)
But hey, don't listen to the warnings.. just keep letting your country turn into a totalitarian regime.
Re:What's wrong with a national ID card? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not really rational. The US has this deeply embedded association of mandatory, national ID cards with Hitler or Stalin. Obviously universally accepted identifiers are necessary, but people are willing to accept driver's licenses (state-issued, and not theoretically mandatory) and social security numbers (not theoretically IDs), just not a Mandatory National ID Card like every other country in the world has.
Every country has its distinctive quirks; this is one of them.
Unfair (Score:4, Insightful)
But the very real people, trying to legally immigrate, are they not worth something too? Why should other people get ahead of them just because they wandered over?
If someone jumps ahead of you in line, do you say "well good for them for coming out of the shadows" or do you steam because it's not fair? No life is not fair, but then why make it even more unfair than it is already for people that are trying to follow rules.
Not to mention, if you provide amnesty for millions of people, why on earth would not millions more come illegally, expecting the same thing? You are opening the floodgates to a lot more illegal immigration. You help a group now and simply shift the same problem to the future. If you are going to do that, just do away with immigration laws or border control or any pretense you want to have the slightest idea or control over who is immigrating.
This has been a mass awakening (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The National ID did not do it... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll invoke a statute of limitations argument. As far as I'm concerned, it's pointless to whine about wrongs that happened over a hundred years ago. There is no person alive today that had anything to do with the misdeeds that you complain about. The water flowed under the bridge and has already flowed into the ocean. Please get over it. I thought history has shown that generations-old grudges does no one any good.
Re:The National ID did not do it... (Score:3, Insightful)
No one said that 'white persons' have more of a claim to rights in the US. Americans have a claim here, because they were born here or became citizens. This includes white, black, hispanic, indian, whatever.
Mexicans (to use your example) have no claim to US soil, just like Germans have no claim on French soil, or Italians have claim to Spanish soil, just because hundreds of years ago, they controlled part of it. National borders exist because at some point in time, when there was a conflict, one side won and the other side lost. That's how it always works.
Now, with regards to what harm have I seen from immigrants? Well, depends. Being a legal immigrant, I can tell you that I pay income taxes, property taxes (I own a home), have a job, and I'm a productive member of my community.I know a number of other legal immigrants that do exactly the same, and love this country as only someone that views it as the land of true oportunity could.
Illegal immigrants, on the other hand, are a burden on the health system (a number of emergency rooms in California hospitals closed because bills were not being paid), are unsafe drivers (number of hit-and-run accidents by unlicensed and uninsured drivers has skyrocketed in California), drain resources in the education system (some districts are over made up of over 70% illegal aliens), all the while not contributing one dime to the infrastructure that supports them (since they don't pay taxes because they have no documentation or are paid in cash at their construction/landscaping/agricultural jobs).
I won't even start on the failure rates of hispanic students in the public school system compared to other minorities, or the criminal statistics for hispanic males, most of which never get deported back to their country because local law enforcement has their hands tied by things like Proposition 87 in LA, where police cannot ask about residency status, even if they have reason to believe the person is here illegally.
Overall, I think you might not want to get that nail-studded clue bat out... you might end up injuring yourself.
Re:ID for Gov't Services (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it? When you can be placed on a "no fly" list for any reason, can't get off it, and can't even see it?
Is it? When you can be placed on a list [washingtonpost.com] that forbids anyone to sell you a car, open a bank account, hire you, and more, without any sort of judicial oversight or other legal process?
Is it? When your personal choices about what you can do to yourself, and with consenting partners, are the subject of draconian laws designed to make you comply with the personal opinions of others? When the use of a sex toy can land you jail? When the display of a banner at a parade can get you sanctioned?
I don't think so. I think privacy has become the last bastion of freedom, and there isn't a lot of it left as is. RealID is even worse than the "papers please" people think it is, because the country's treatment of free, law-abiding citizens - not to mention its treatment of those who have paid their debt to society for previous transgressions - has descended nearly to the level of the mid 20th century Soviet Union, and it is getting worse.
How Cliché (Score:5, Insightful)
My wife is from China, and while they don't have papers they have to carry around with them, they are not free to just pick up an live wherever they wish. I really doubt this will come to pass even with a National ID.
People always trot out these objections based on knee jerk emotional reactions to abuses in the past. The proposed boarder along our Mexican border gets similar jeers although the reason for its need is exactly the opposite of the reason for the Berlin Wall.
I for one would concentrate on protecting our Freedom of Speech rights (for which you are entitled to your opinion in this) and challenge to you suggest a feasible alternative that safeguards our borders, cuts down on illegal immigration, and possible terrorist activity. I don't live my life in fear of terrorism, but as the husband of Chinese national who has played by the rules and lived apart from my wife for TWO YEARS, I really do chafe at proposals to give illegals a faster easier way in than for those of us playing by the rules.
Maybe without a National ID we will never have another major successful terrorist attack, but I guarantee we will have such an ID in the wake of one.
Re:Is amnesty so bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that illegal immigrants (or undocumented workers, however you want to label them) only last as long as they do here to serve the whim of corporations that frequently use them as underpaid employees that will not unionize, will willingly work in hazardous work environments, and will only rarely leave their job voluntarily (for better pay, better work, etc). If you bring them out of the shadows, you bring to light all the abuses they have willingly suffered over the years to avoid even worse work conditions and pay in their home countries. Employers of newly-legalized immigrants will be forced to clean up their acts and raise pay for their formerly-undocumented workforce if they wish to continue employing said immigrants. Logically speaking, one should conclude that legalized immigrants will lose their jobs, probably to a new wave of illegals that will flood in as replacements.
In other words, if you give current undocumented workers the same rights, protections, and wages as natural-born Americans or legal immigrants, corporations will have no desire to hire them. For this reason, it is not rational to conclude that anyone currently "in the shadows" will step out and claim their place in American society. To do so would be to face layoffs. Anyone foolish enough to "go legal" would probably sooner become an American welfare case than move back to their home country. It's a lose-lose situation.
If we are so determined to make sure that employers grant fair pay and provide adequate workplace safety as the law demands, and furthermore pay wages as the free market frequently demands, it would be more wise for us to simply deport or otherwise disenfranchise the 12+ million undocumented workers we have now to force employers to hire American citizens and/or documented workers. Contrary to what corporate shills would have you believe, modern Americans will do just about any job you put in front of them provided that the pay is right. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, they can even harvest lettuce, tomatoes, and other veggies in the field.
The real question is whether or not significant wage increases for menial laborers in the US would hurt the economy more than our current labor situation in which millions of undocumented workers siphon off public funds in the form of local, state, and federal aid programs due to their pathetic wages. They also wire much of their liquid capital back to their families abroad, all but guaranteeing that they can not and will not serve as an economic stimulus in our country. Raising wages of American workers, on the other hand, would be good for our economy. This point is often made by proponents of minimum wage increases.
And, if you don't believe that there is an untapped reserve of American workers ready to step up and replace our undocumented worker buddies, you might want to reconsider that point. Current teen and young adult unemployment rates (ages 16-24) are staggering. African-American teens, at least according to a recent column by Bob Herbert, suffer an employment rate of 18% nationwide.
Of course, there is the real threat that many unskilled labor positions will vanish altogether due to automation sometime in the next 20-50 years, but we would be better off positioning ourselves today by not encouraging wave upon wave of unskilled, uneducated foreign workers to enter the country when they and their ilk will likely face widespread obsolescence down the road. Additionally, the widespread deportation of undocumented laborers and its associated increase in labor costs will likely spur development of automation technology in the agricultural, manufacturing, and service industries. An automated American economy combined with new, cheap energy sources (LENR anyone?) could potentially provide goods and services at a price far lower than foreign economies with scads of cheap, uneducated workers subjected to deep poverty-level wages, poor work conditions, and lax environmental standards. Such an economic de
Re:Unfair (Score:4, Insightful)
The process is currently too slow for legal immigration, and impossible for people illegally here. Anything's got to be better than this.
Re:What's wrong with a national ID card? (Score:3, Insightful)
Couple issues here:
1. Most states in the US are larger than some of the countries you are speaking of. Hell, a few cities are.
2. Most of these states already issue their own id.
Re:Is amnesty so bad? (Score:4, Insightful)
At various times, Germany and Spain have tried rounding up and getting rid of 1/100th of their population and look how well that turned out for them.
Re:papers please (Score:5, Insightful)
The security guard, with limited command of english explained to this winner of the Congressional Medal of Honor why that very piece of metal was a security threat in today's world. As Joe had almost laid down his life to preserve such "freedoms" he was a good citizen, and missed his flight... Freedom. it was a nice thing once. now, its a pencil push away....
Mod Parent Up (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, we need those people to work the farms, the low-wage pay. But we need the ones who go through the paperwork and years of waiting and struggle just as much, if not more than those who just follow where the work is.
Re:How Cliché (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, it seems like you already know that (whatever the INS is called these days) is a giant inefficient idiotic agency. The first step towards fixing any immigration issue should be to fix the terribly broken agency that is (whatever the INS is called these days).
Re:There already is a national ID. (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you have a certified copy of your birth certificate? Most people do not. Do you know where you would get one if you needed one? And, most importantly, could you get one in a month if you had to have it?
Worse, if everyone was getting a passport instead of the incredibly small fraction of people that actually do have one, how would the overwhelmed State Department validate all those birth certificates and such? Easy answer - they wouldn't.
Why they wanted to make Driver's Licenses "validated" was to farm the work out to the states and hope for the best. Today just about anybody can get a state photo ID card that says almost anything they want it to. Legal or illegal means nothing. Don't speak English? Here is the card in Spanish, Polish, Russian and a few other languages.
Unfortunately, right now there is nothing that is a valid piece of identification in the US that most people have. A Driver's License is a joke. Nobody has a passport.
Re:Is amnesty so bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
There will always be illegal immigration, as someone will always be willing to risk it, and someone will always be willing to hire at least some of them. But if hiring practices are cleaned up such that it becomes far more difficult to fill in a random SSN, and if enough people actually hiring those here illegally are not just warned or fined but instead sent to prison, as the law allows, the market for them would dry up. How many people are going to be willing to pay $10,000 and spend up to ten years in prison for each illegal immigrant hired?
I'd even consider supporting providing buses, trains, or boats to help them get back home. They sign a waiver saying that they are leaving voluntarily and will not attempt to return in any way for two years, and after that, they can stand in line like everyone else, instead of being forcibly deported and permanently banned from returning to the country. Sure, it will cost a few billion up front, but the long-term savings would be enormous, and once all of the voluntaries have left after a couple of years, new plans could be considered on how to deal with any worker shortages that may be present -- if they even exist.
Re:ID for Gov't Services (Score:5, Insightful)
It is wrong because the list only has your name, like the no-fly list, the no-buy list, the no-employ list, and no doubt a host of other lists. It is wrong because the government is composed of a bunch of incompetents that don't have to be right, because they don't suffer when they are wrong by either punishment or loss of profit. It is wrong because 1 in 6 jury convictions is wrong [breitbart.com]. You don't want to get your nose in the gears, much less what you amusingly refer to as your "fat ass."
I'd love to have seen you try to tell that to the founding fathers. Uprisings clearly have their place. Your threatening rhetoric notwithstanding.
No, that was the police state. The same police state that captured and unjustly imprisoned all the innocent citizens of Japanese descent. The same police state that shot (though I prefer to be forthright and just say "murdered") the students [may4.org] at Kent State. The same police state that creates and imposes constitutionally forbidden ex post facto laws. The same police state that enforced prohibition. The same police state that tells citizens they can't display banners. The same police state that tells citizens they can't speak within X feet of privileged events and locales. The same police state that restricts what can be said on the radio, and restricts access to broadcasts to the monied and the government. The same police state that determines what is, and what isn't, a "valid" religion. The same police state that tells citizens what they can and cannot do with their own bodies and with consenting adults. The same police state that forbids assisted suicide. The same police state that did illegal eavesdropping then, and now. The same police state that has held citizens prisoner for years without access to counsel, much less a hearing. The same police state that sterilized people [gottshall.com] based on "fitness." The same police state that disseminates vile propaganda about sexuality, drugs and more. Predictions of imminent arrival are wrong, but only because they're been in power for quite a few decades now.
Look, maybe you should just grab your bag of chips and sit back down on your couch if this stuff is over your head. Unless you are really serious about threatening me, in which case, you are cordially invited to my martial arts school [flickr.com], where I will be happy to tie you into a knot even a sailor couldn't untie — without even hurting you. It's no trouble really, just a standard ju do and chin na demo I use on street toughs of all sizes to ensure I have their attention when they get mouthy. Sounds like you could use a little lesson in humility anyway.
exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
Not worth it, it's a slap in the face to the lawful immigrants who follow thew rules, it completely destroys any notion of rational "national security" when you have millions of who knows who roaming around, it degrades an already too low wage scale for the poorer legals in the US, it corrupts the border areas, it forces local governments to assume *huge* property tax increases to deal with sudden explosive growth, which is not even close to being offset by any alleged productivity of the illegals, it brings in all sorts of heinous gang presence (that's the real terrorism in the US, hundred thousand and counting hispanic gang members, some going into the 3rd generation!),there is little assimilation,just demands that everything be in their language or it is "racist", and etc.
And people who support illegal immigration must therefore also support the reasons those folks want to come here, their home countries are run by racist billionaires and entrenched and inefficient bureaucracies. It makes a lot more sense to be in favor of those nations cleaning up their acts, then rewarding them by letting them get away with those sorts of antisocial crimes for generations.
Want to have constructive change? Make the illegals go home and sort their own mistakes out in their own nations, and if that means a "heads on pikes" stage, so be it. Some of those nations like Mexico are long overdue for some social rearranging. Mexico is not a poor nation, it's rich in natural resources, good farmland, two oceans, a willing labor force, etc, it's just run like crap by 200 wealthy families and a pseudo elected government that is really just part of organized crime and the class warfare schism perpetuated by the elite there.
Re:ID for Gov't Services (Score:3, Insightful)
several reasons:
1. For profit or gain.
2. For the children (or similar emotional, irrational nonsense). Example: "Papers please arguments"
3. Groupthink. It's the groupthink-approved position.
4. Racism: They want folks who are a minority to be allowed to get away with anything they want and minorities can't be held to any standards. IDs will make that harder.
5. Some folks also think privacy is some kind of inherent right, like the right to free speech, or the right not to be enslaved. They can't really support that position with history or reason though. They just assert it, like religious folks. They simply believe.
6. Tinfoil hat paranoia. The government is out to get them and they want to hide rather than help fix it. Because fixing it would require being reasonable and responsible.
Internal borders vs external borders. (Score:5, Insightful)
At least that I've seen, a lot of people seem to be against RealID, while also being supportive of robust enforcement of our immigration laws. They (and I include myself in this camp) want our immigration laws enforced, but want it enforced in ways that don't impose upon and potentially make criminals out of many legitimate citizens who don't want to be forced to carry around "papers" all the time, or have to show them to any official on command. People want our immigration law enforced at our borders, with possible incursions 'inland' to attempt to remedy (by which I mean, deport) people who are known to be here illegally.
But in general I think that the two aren't hand in hand. I don't really understand the objections to the border wall, since it seems like a totally unremarkable and obvious solution when you've got people walking across that shouldn't be walking across (I also think that putting the military down there is an obvious solution, too, since defending the nation's borders is a totally legitimate use for the military -- why is it OK to use our military to defend some other country's borders and not our own?). My personal suspicion there is that the opposition is pragmatic rather than philosophical -- there are a lot of agribusiness lobbies that depend on illegal immigrants and don't want anything that makes the labor supply tighter, and a robust border defense would do that. Also, Bush seems to be almost comically cozy with the Mexican President, and the Mexicans obviously don't want any U.S. border defenses, because illegal workers in the 'States are a major source of income for Mexico. (But why we should really care about that is beyond me. Last time I checked, Mexico didn't have a seat in the Senate.)
At any rate, I think it's not at all hypocritical to be against the internal borders that Real ID would create, while also supporting firm control over our external borders, both to the north and south.
Re:exactly (Score:3, Insightful)
Not worth it, it's a slap in the face to the lawful immigrants who follow thew rules,
I completely agree. My wife is a legal immigrant, and it's crazy that Congress would even think of saying that we stood in those USCIS (aka INS) lines for nothing. The idea that a $5000 fine makes it OK is crazy--legal immigration for my wife ended up costing us about a grand, and we did all the paperwork ourselves; a lawyer would have been much more. Throw in the fact that we actually had to pay taxes (whereas illegals can get away with only paying a few years of back taxes, if that), and it's not clear we "saved" any money by my wife immigrating legally.
Make the illegals go home and sort their own mistakes out in their own nations,
Yes! We are not doing the poor of Mexico a favor by supplying a "pressure relief valve" that delays social reform. Also, our own un- and under-employed poor would do a lot better if they didn't have to compete against illegal immigrants for jobs.
Re:And as stated before ... (Score:2, Insightful)
So long as you focus on "who" you miss "what". It is utterly irrelevant, security-wise, to worry about who is there. It's pointless to worry about "who" because 99% of the time you won't know the background of the people or even worse, the false positives of the innocent criminal will bite you in the ass. Real-ID won't change that unless you want Gestapo-detail files on every human that travels. (Talk about rights violations!) I don't give a damn about the violent drug dealer who just happens to be flying to Jamaica for his vacation. The only question is "what actions are possible" and how can they be prevented. The government doesn't need to fucking know I'm traveling to see my parents or that I'm traveling at all. Limited, constrained behavior, is perfectly compatible with freedom if it is extremely limited provided it is applied to everyone and for salient security purposes. And it better damn well end the moment I get off the airplane and goto zero the moment I pass customs!
If we had worried about "what" instead of "who" there would have been no 9/11. Cockpit doors would be titanium with reinforcement capable of withstanding multiple-ton dead weight level impacts. EVERY flight would have proper security, which means armed personel with frangible munition. EVERY person would be properly screened -- which means they get x-rayed and metal detector and explosive-sniff screen as they walk along a properly constructed tunnel towards the airplane. Same goes for luggage and carry-on. We STILL don't have explosive-proof storage bins in planes, even though they were demonstrated by Dupont almost, what, 20 years ago? Every pilot should have a side-arm -- and we saw how well that went over with our socialist/fascist FAA/Homeland security overlords. Oh my, the cost people say. Yeah, $500 billion 9/11 event and we were squeamish over the $250 million retrofits to airplanes and of the cost of keeping a mere 8,000 sky marshals on the payroll... Fuck you! your "Papers please" Gestapo mentality and your statist brethren.
The only reason US airlines ever got away without doing this, is that fact that regulations always establish a point which becomes a static universal minimum. Every cockpit had an FAA-approved door instead of a door that common-sense, business acumen and hijack concerns demand. Thank you FAA and your asinine regs.
God damn you "federal security experts" all to hell. You couldn't protect a corner grocery store let alone air travel.
Re:papers please (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I need a job (Score:3, Insightful)
That's because YOU have to obey the laws, as does an employer who hires you. Not necessarily true for the illegals and their employers (who are both already breaking at least one law just for starters).
Minimum wage. Workplace safety. Health benefits. Union activity. Mandatory overtime. I could go on for paragraphs.
Point is that an employer can't get away with paying you as little as he can pay an illegal. The government won't let him.
Further, employers who chose only to hire legals - residents and citizens - are at a competitive disadvantage relative to those who hire illegals. In some industries (such as construction) the disadvantage is massive - often leaving the employer with the choice of hiring illegals or going out of business. (This is the fault of the government, for failing to enforce the law on his competitors.)
Re:How Cliché (Score:5, Insightful)
As for illegal immigration, the major problem is that citizens of our poor neighbors to the south have great incentives to come up here: gov't benefits (e.g., schooling for children) and readily available jobs. The first can be solved, by giving gov't benefits only to green card holders; the latter, not so easily.
Finally, RealID is indeed a disaster for 4th amendment rights, the right to assemble, states' rights, and protection from private data warehousing. There is no reason for the US federal gov't to track the movements of citizens, or Constitutional power to assert a national identity system. Social security numbers have already been abused.
Who cares about the immigrants? (Score:5, Insightful)
ARREST THE BASTARDS THAT HIRE THEM.
Some random latino looking for work isn't a threat to America. The American 'citizen' who is breaking the law and hiring him is directly betraying our laws and our people to save himself some cash. By definition, if Americans refuse to work in your job, you aren't offering enough money for it. That is how capitalism works, and it is the cheapskates hiring illegals who are driving down the living wage and options for advancement for the American poor.
I'm fine with bringing anyone who wants over here to work - legally and for the same wage that I would get at that position, so they can compete on merit, and the price of labor doesn't get driven down. I used to work in construction, and every time just rich jackass complains about how the guys he hired to build his addition don't speak English and messed up his house, but he's hiring them back because "they're so darn cheap" I just want to spit.
Of course, none of this will ever happen because half of Congress will get arrested or lose their gardeners.
Re:ID for Gov't Services (Score:2, Insightful)
It really has nothing to do with security. It has to do with generating unique Tax IDs. If I ran everything (and was corrupt with the power), I know my first order of business is to get everyone cataloged and move them to paperless currency.
FREEDOM is not the right to chose between McDonalds and Burger King, that is merely CHOICE. FREEDOM means the power to act, speak, or think without externally imposed restraints. FREEDOM sadly is mostly forgotten these days where things like a national ID can even considered, and is even a scary concept for many.
Serialization marks the death of freedom. What you experience at the DMV/Doctor/Airport/Banking is what life under serialization is like. Imagine every aspect of life being like that.
Re:How Cliché (Score:2, Insightful)
Also possibly party affiliation? just kidding, but this is not a kneejerk reaction, even if you don't agree and want the national ID.
Possible biometric identification, limiting access to noncritical Federal buildings, likely implementation of RFID; these are some of the concerns.
Let's hypothetically say I send an email that says, 'that's da bomb' (back in the 90's or so), threaten use of Tom Cruise missiles against the scientologists, and set off some m80's on Independence Day.
I am then, officially, an e-terrorist, a regular terrorist, and a Lone Wolf Terrorist. Respectively. Next time I go to the registry I am identified. Maybe I go to Yellowstone National Park. Or try to.
Or I'm at home and start googling for Candystriper Death Orgy on youtube. Or Cannibal Corpse's 3rd track on "the bleeding"
"Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society."
Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 1995.
"There ought to be limits on freedom"
George W. Bush
There's some Freedom of Speech stuff...
Or maybe... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You have got to be kidding... (Score:3, Insightful)
Thats a meaningless measurement. Take a look at polls on the performance of Democrats in Congress and Republicans in Congress. Both figures are higher than the score for Congress as a whole. The score for Democrats is considerably higher than for Republicans.
The complaints that lead to the low score are not exactly ones that herald a Republican victory in '08. People are upset that Congress has failled to impeach Gonzalez, Cheney and Bush. People are upset that Congress has not cut off funding of Bush's war.
The number of people who are upset that Congress has been insufficiently Republican looks just like Bush's own polling numbers.
Re:papers please (Score:2, Insightful)
If Joe Foss served our country in the military, he did lay down his life. He was just one of the lucky ones who got to pick it back up and enjoy some of the fruits of his sacrifice.
This is one of my pet peeves -- our soldiers aren't brave heroes if they die in service, they are brave and they are heroes because they take the risk.