February 11, 2005
House Approves Immigration Bill
The Associated Press reports that the House of Representatives approved Congressman James Sensenbrenner’s Real ID Act of 2005, H.R.418 by a 261-161 vote.
The legislation will force the states to make sure they’re not granting driver’s licenses to illegal aliens, allow the federal government to complete a controversial fence on the border with Mexico, regardless of environmental concerns, and grant judges broader power to deport political asylum seekers.
States will have three years to comply with the new federal standards dictating what features driver's licenses must have. They could still issue special driving permits to illegal aliens, but those permits would not be recognized as identities for boarding airlines or allowing entry to federal buildings.
According to the Associated Press, ten states now don't require license applicants to prove they are citizens or legal residents:
Hawaii, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin and Utah. Tennessee issues driving certificates to people who cannot prove they are legal residents.
"Today there are over 350 valid driver's license designs issued by the 50 states," said the bill's author, House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis. "We all know it's very difficult for security officials at airports to tell the real ID cards from the counterfeit ones."
Mexico is critical of the bill:
We oppose those measures and that our migrants be denied drivers' licenses," said Interior Secretary Santiago Creel. "We're against building any wall between our two countries because they are walls that increase our differences.
This bill, if it passes the Senate is an important step in securing our borders and bringing some sanity to U.S. immigration policy. These measures were among the corrective actions identified by the September 11 Commission.
The provisions about drivers licences are critical because driver licenses often used for such security-sensitive purposes as boarding commercial aircraft, gaining access to federal facilities and establishing bank accounts. Requiring that the states establish that an applicant has legal resident status in the United States, and that his or her license will be valid only as long as that remains the case is pretty sensible.
This will also help prevent circumstances that enabled the September 11 hijackers to obtain dozens of such IDs.
Making it more difficult for terrorists to seek and obtain asylum in the United States is also an important rationalization of our immigration policy. As Mr. Sensenbrenner has put it, the objective is to ensure that "terrorists, like the one who plotted the '93 World Trade Center bombing and the man who shot up the entrance to the CIA headquarters, could not get into the country and roam around as an asylum applicant."
Ensuring that environmental laws can no longer be used to prevent completion of a border fence near San Diego is also a no-brainer. Now a 3½ mile gap allows illegal aliens easy access to the United States.
The REAL ID bill also makes it clear that members of a terrorist organization or group that "endorses or espouses terrorist activity" are inadmissible to the United States and facilitates deporting any such individuals found in this country.
So why couldn't these reforms be passed last year? How could anyone be against these simple steps to improve our security?
You will have to ask the Senate Democrats that prevented these provisions from being included when the Congress acted on other September 11 Commission recommendations last year in the so-called "Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act ."
The House Democrats voted against the Real ID Act by a 3 to 1 margin:
Yeas
Republican 219 Democratic 42 Total 261
Nays
Republican 8 Democratic 152 Independent 1 Total161
Not Voting
Republican 4 Democratic 7 Total 11
How could they?
Posted by Dan Spencer at February 11, 2005 12:05 PMHow could they?
Because the bill also requires states to link their databases with the Federal government, allowing access to your complete driving history, motor vehicle violations, etc. I guess, ‘requires states’ isn’t quite accurate, states may choose not to comply, but at the expense of losing their federal insterstate funding. This bill amounts to extortion of the states by the federal government.
There is also a yet-unspecified technology that must be included in the IDs. From the bill, it must be “machine-readable technology, with defined minimum data elements”, which might be a simple barcode or magnetic strip, or it could be even more obtrusive with something like an RFID tag, which could be used to track people’s locations.
All these things amount to an unnecessary invasion of privacy by the federal government.
So in answer to your question, How could they? By realizing its not as black and white when you look at all the details. Sure, standardized IDs would help security, but like any ID, will be counterfeitable. The additional measures in the bill push things farther than a lot of people are comfortable with, including myself.
Posted by: AParker at February 11, 2005 12:26 PMThey voted against it because, to anyone that remembers how the USSR worked, a national ID system is kind of creepy. You might have missed it, but Democrats have become the party of civil liberties and states rights, and Republicans have become the party of big-deficit overspending and big-government centralized, federal control of the country. It’s all part of “the dramatic shift of the red-state bourgeoisie from leave-us-alone libertarianism…to almost totalitarian statist nationalism. Whereas the conservative middle class once cheered the circumscribing of the federal government, it now celebrates power and adores the central state.” [Blue column]
Posted by: William Cohen at February 11, 2005 12:37 PMHow could they?Because America is a nation based on freedom, not on security.
Hearing about the Real ID bill’s passage this morning literally made me feel sick. To me, this represents a point of no return for civil liberties: soon, you won’t be able to work, fly, drive or buy and sell on a large scale without electronic ID.
That’s the stuff of dystopias, of the Apocalypse, when the mark of the Beast will be needed to buy, sell, work, etc. I keep reminding myself that this is the newspaper I’m reading, not a science-fiction thriller. Uggh.
I hope it gets shot down by the President or the courts for unconstitutionality. It is unconstitutional on a few levels:
(1) It clearly oversteps Federal bounds as laid down by the Constitution. Yeah, I know the courts have been pretty lax about this, but maybe some of them will wake up now.
(2) It illegally restricts access to public places. U.S. buildings and public places belong to the people, and any U.S. citizen should have access to them. Restricting those who refuse to use an electronic ID is illegal if they have another valid form of identification.
My hope is that one or two states will have the bollucks to stand up to this. If Massachusetts or Virginia or Colorado alone refused to update its ID, the whole thing would collapse.
Posted by: Chops at February 11, 2005 12:44 PMAnother problem with the bill is the language used to grant the homeland security department the ability to create barriers and roads. Above, it is listed as a simple ability to avoid environmental laws, but the actual text is:
`(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary’s sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.`(2) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court shall have jurisdiction—
`(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or
`(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.’.
So, the homeland security department can create walls or roads wherever they want to, regardless of law, without compensating the owner of whatever property is involved, and without any recourse to the judicial system.
Maybe the democrats voted against it because they beleived in due process.
Keep the fence, dump the rest in the bill, and I will call my representatives to support it. Otherwise, they will not get my vote in 2006.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 11, 2005 02:51 PMIllegal. What does that mean? If the INS would do its job and illegals were to be deported w/o due process, (remember, illegal) than we wouldn’t need a new law. Congress cannot write a coherent bill anyways; It’s ridiculous to fight terrorism, and yes, Islam-Fascists do want “Infidels” dead, and allow easy access through our borders. Plain and simple. Political correctness need not apply anymore.
Posted by: Char at February 11, 2005 02:52 PMWow, read some of this bill. It’s true the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
[[tightens tin foil hat]]
-T
Posted by: Taylor at February 11, 2005 03:03 PMThis bill goes entirely too far. I agree with the border fence.. but I do not like the driver’s license issue which could too easily become a national ID card.
This bill cannot be allowed to pass as is. It needs major changes. I am not prepared to give up my freedom for terrorists or anyone else.
Longstreet
Posted by: Longstreet at February 11, 2005 07:05 PMThis is just the beginning. What we are seeing is the start of something similar to the Communist Witchhunts of the 50’s. They will use this to prevent Public Gatherings by anyone they don’t agree with. They are already barring people from Bush’s Public Speeches. Soon they will stop them from travelling too.
Welcome to Bush’s FantasyLand. You voted for him, afterall.
Posted by: Aldous at February 12, 2005 09:35 AMDan,
How could they indeed. After all the talk about keeping America safer during the election they seem to have no idea how senseless it is to hand out official government documentation to anyone who shows up at the DMV.
This isn’t an issue of gestapo vs. civil rights, it’s an issue of data integrity. If legal immigration and illegal immigration are to mean anything there must be a difference in what privileges are afforded to these two designations. Otherwise let’s just open the border completely. Let everyone in who wants to and make them a citizen as soon as they step foot in America.
Posted by: ericsimonson at February 13, 2005 02:53 AMWe already have a national ID, its called a drivers license.
If you get one in any state it works in all states.
If some of the states issue them without proof of who you really are, there should be some Fed standards.
I don’t agree with any kind of GPS tracking system added to it, or medical records, but there should be some standards.
Posted by: Beagle at February 13, 2005 09:08 AM
Guy’s
All new cars and trucks have GPS built
into their ECM allready. Most all cell phones
have GPS built in. Do any of you have these?
Guess what, it’s done.
Beagle, what if you are unable to get a driver’s license because of age, infirmity, and simply don’t want one?
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 13, 2005 03:18 PMIf I was an illegal, I’d be pretty nervous.
Posted by: Otter at February 13, 2005 11:57 PMWhy doesn’t the INS just crack down on employers of illegal immigrants? It’s not like they come here and live in a hole, or something. They get jobs, rent apartments, get phone and garbage removal services, etc. Are existing laws really so inadequate for finding and booting ‘em?
David,
” Beagle, what if you are unable to get a driver’s license because of age, infirmity, and simply don’t want one?”
I’m sure those people will right now have a hard time boarding a plane, cashing a check, whatever.
I’m just saying that those that DO apply for a drivers license should prove who they really are, and licences should have some standards to prevent fakes and scams.
ID etc. need not be the ogre everyone fears if we had politicians that had a collective IQ beyond two digits. You are all correct in your concerns, but some of you are a little too wild eyed. It is not the next step to Big Brother. Even the knot heads that write the rules have limits either on their own or imposed.
You need to write your Congressman and your Senator and harass them intellignetly with your concerns. I have had to put up with so much lack of discipline in this country these past few decades, that I am glad to see some effort and hope it will be imbued with common sense.
So, badger those who can do something about it. Living room conversation accomplishes nothing.
Posted by: Dee Lee at February 15, 2005 07:20 PMThe funny thing about the fence part of it, is that it runs right through the habitat of about 3 dozen endangered species. Environment groups have an alternate plan that would provide the same level of protection without hurting a thing, but, funnily enough, no one in Congress or the media is listening.
Posted by: Josh at February 17, 2005 05:58 AMDoes the environmental group’s fence run on the Mexican side, or the American side? I doubt either country is going to cede territory - even useless territory - to the other.
Posted by: American Pundit at February 17, 2005 09:32 PMBTW, I’m not hot on the idea of a fence anyhow. Like the man said, “Don’t fence me in.” How about more surveillance and patrols? And a crackdown on businesses that employ illegal aliens. If they can’t find (illegal) work, they won’t come here.
Great need to secure these Borders!
Yes, you already have an ID card, i.e., the valid driver’s license. Long overdue and need to get the illegals out of here! Go after the employers and force the local police chiefs, DAs, (political appointed whores), etc. to enforce the laws of this country. (also need to get non-citizens off govt. benefits usage; cannot and could not afford all this given away by political special interests groups working against American citizens’ interests.
