February 11, 2005
Resistance Is Futile
This post offers a Republican counterpoint to Dan Spencer’s article below. Spencer, like many Republicans, is glad to see the Federal government stepping in to address illegal immigration, which such “news” figures as Lou Dobbs of CNN have taken up as a pet issue. However, the bill does not stop at thwarting illegal immigrants; it proceeds to regulate the entirety of the American populace in one deft move.
I doubt the authors of this bill understand its consequences. I only hope that the Senate, the president, the courts, and the states do understand it.
The fundamental problem with this bill is that it would set in motion a mechanism of control that the people of the United States would never be able to overcome. By triumphing so totally over the constitutional rights of the States, Congress would be able to expand indefinitely on the electronic ID requirement. The next step is easy to see: a national biometric ID card, which coincidentally was approved by the UK's House of Commons today. Each step toward techno-fascism has benefits, such as better crime-fighting capabilities. But each step also hedges in the freedom of the U.S. citizen.
Imagine trying to organize the Underground Railroad, the labor movement, the women's suffrage movement, or the early civil rights movement in the face of a hostile government armed with that kind of information. A simple computer command executed by some technocrat in Washington would immediately turn off the permissions on a particular ID card. When the 21st century's Frederick Douglass and Susan B. Anthony arrived at the airport, they would be told that they could not fly. The lowly ID-checker would be too ignorant or too frightened to disobey and allow the agitators through. After all, he could be tracked down and imprisoned for allowing a potential terrorist on an airplane.
Turned away at the airport security checkpoint, our 21st century Susan B. Anthony flips open her cell phone. She knows that every call is monitored by the Federal National Safety Administration, but she has no alternative. They write the codes that keep data secure - secure from anyone but themselves. She reaches her conference hosts and apologizes that she has been "unavoidably detained" and won't be able to speak to the students that evening.
It's just as well for the students: to enter the public hall in which the speech was to be held, they would have had to swipe their ID cards, just as they did entering and leaving each classroom that day. Having their names on a list of agitators could hurt them in their classes, and could hurt them getting a job. After all, every prospective employer could easily swipe an applicant's ID card and return a veritable tome of information.
Allergies and blood type would be on the first page, educational achievement on the next. Any criminal record was noted. If the applicant had been a part of any dangerous group, it was public knowledge. After all, you wouldn't want to accidentally hire a terrorist or a child molester? And given the state of the nation, no employer in his right mind would hire a former agitator for an important job. They were as bad as the low-class Guest Workers and those who had failed compulsory English-language tests when leaving high school. As one after another job applicant was told, "It's just not worth the risk."
Escaping the insanity to Canada or elsewhere was not much of an option either. Not only because Canada had the same system and shared much of its data, but because leaving the country was nearly impossible. Unless one first lined up a job and residence north of the border, crossing was out of the question for one out of favor with the government. And if you tried, you could get killed. To a generation steeped in safety and security, it's just not worth the risk.
***
Returning to January 11th, 2005, we live in a world where you can still disagree with the government, and even break its laws with a certain degree of impunity. We are faced increasingly with opportunities to cede our freedoms to the government for the sake of security. If we continue to do so, however, we will realize that the government is no longer asking our permission before trading in our freedoms. This is a slippery slope: each freedom given away further empowers the government to make decisions for us.
The only government that should be allowed to know everything about its citizens is the perfect government. In some theoretical theocracy, an all-knowing and all-loving God could govern for the benefit of all. But we live in a country whose Constitution originally sanctioned slavery, whose Congress set up the Committee on Un-American Affairs, whose courts fail to protect the unborn, whose past is rife with poor judgment and downright malice.
Unless you think our government is perfect and will remain so, you should seek to limit its power over us. If you do think our government is perfect and will remain so, you should seek professional help.
Great story, Chops. I never thought I’d see the day when so many Republicans champion such broad expansion of power for the federal government.
Posted by: AParker at February 11, 2005 01:51 PMThanks, fellas. I’ll miss ya when they come for me :-)
For anyone interested in getting into the substance of this thing, the entire bill is
online, courtesy of Thomas. I don’t know if it has been amended at all from the form it appears there.
I also found some info on the technical progress of the bill in the Chicago Tribune, which notes that it will have a tough time getting through the Senate.
Posted by: Chops at February 11, 2005 01:57 PMChops, excellent article.
Add to it the “sleeper”. Sleepers are young people immigrated from other nations or born and raised here to appear to be law abiding citizens until the fateful day that the mission which they were planted and trained here to accomplish like “cyber-terrorism” or massive coordinated infra-structure attacks arrives. Some in our government and millions of Americans were sure there were Communist sleepers responsible for the Civil Rights agitation and the 1967 Riots.
Once a government can establish in the minds of the people the awesome fear of sleepers who could be your best friend, your employee, your school teacher, your dentist, or even police person, the government has the will of the people to implant electronic tracking ID devices in all citizens. That is of course the only way to track down and get those sleepers when they depart from their normal cover lives to engage in the nefarious acts for which they were supposedly raised and trained.
Slippery slope in the beginning, avalanche in the end completely burying any real freedom whatsoever to depart from a robotic routine existence.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 11, 2005 02:44 PM“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Ben Franklin
Posted by: Rocky at February 11, 2005 02:46 PM“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Ben Franklin
Nor will they retain either in the long run.
Posted by: Chops at February 11, 2005 03:25 PMAfter carefully reading the above story by “chops” I can hardly wait for it to happen. Stopping the likes of Frederick Douglass and Susan B. Anthony what are we waiting for! I wrote to my Senators before this post to tell them of my support. Not sure where they stand however.In my part of the country most people would be against a national Id base on “reason of faith”. But for me the sooner we number every single person the better.
If indeed thats what it is coming to.
The innocent have nothing to fear but fear itself. Yes, I know a few mistakes will take place but nothing is perfect.
“The innocent have nothing to fear but fear itself.”
RODNEY,
It is statements like these that lure us into the depths of Facism. Look over your shoulder folks, Orwell is coming up fast.
Posted by: Rocky at February 11, 2005 07:58 PMRocky, I have been saying that since the Reagan years, and I have been right every inch of the way. The US government is inept at its most basic requirements like responding to warnings of an impending 9/11, and when it is not inept, it is corruptly bought and sold to the highest campaign contribution contributors.
We are on a roll and that is what we need. We need to continue this path of ineptness and corruption until the bulk of the people finally say it is time to throw the whole government out and start over. For when the bulk of the people reach that point, the bulk of the military will as well, and that is what would be needed for a successful revolution.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 11, 2005 08:12 PMDavid -
I think one of the few uncorrupt elements of this country is the military. It’s difficult to imagine them being drawn into an internal conflict; the tradition of civilian control is so deeply engrained and so sacredly guarded that I think they would basically stand by and await orders if anything like a revolutions really happened.
Incidentally, the first step toward a democratic revolution is taking place in California: Arnold Schwarzenegger is taking the legislature by the balls and demanding nonpartisan redistricting. Dems and Repubs alike are squirming, but I doubt they can stand against the Demokratizer. :)
Posted by: Chops at February 11, 2005 08:26 PMRocky, It’s way past 1984 and we are still going along our merry way. Administrations (Presidents)
come and go and still not much has really changed. People are born and people die, I’ve heard doomsday reports for years and yet nothing much has changed. I know terrible things can happen and do, but really a national ID card? You know like you can’t buy and sell thing the religious nuts talk about all the time? I just don’t see it.
Nicely done, Chops.
“There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take part; you can’t even passively take part, and you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop. And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!”
Mario Savio, 1964
Rodneyt,
It’s not about the year it’s about the Idea. I am not doing anything illegal, but I don’t want my government to be able to track my every move. I enjoy the freedom to move about with impunity. I would very much like to keep it that way.
David,
I find it curious that the Republicans, supposedly the party of Constitution lovers and limited government, wants to take away my rights in order to “protect” me. I don’t need protecting, thank you very much. Just give me back my rights and leave me alone.
Rocky, of course you want the freedom to move about as you wish. But, Governments don’t leave people alone do they? And sometimes I don’t think we really want them to.It seems to me we want a government to take care of us, give us a check each month and of course medical insurance too. Well, all that has a price and if what I’m reading from some of these posts is true then maybe that price is going to be too high. Keeping tabs on each citizen is indeed getting easier and I know you must know that mankind best intentions can be perverted.But,if we ask our government to take care us I guess we shouldn’t be surprised if they say yes. It’s just that we may not like what they have in mind.
I don’t think most people have a clue and frankly
don’t care too.
Chops said: “David -
I think one of the few uncorrupt elements of this country is the military. It’s difficult to imagine them being drawn into an internal conflict;”
Difficult to imagine? No need to imagine, Chops. Just pick up a history book and turn to 1865. Not only is it not difficult to imagine, it has already happened, father against son, brother against brother. The military comes from the civilian population and despite the military’s brainwashing machine, the personnel remain connected to their families and their family’s concerns and values and heartbreaks. As goes the civilian population so goes the military.
Another chapter in history illustrates this point, turn to 1970 and 1971 and review the solidarity of the militar at that point. I was in the Army in 1972, and it was as divided as the nation. Lifers had little but contempt for draftee’s and draftee’s detested lifers. It was not obvious on the bases or on duty, but it sure was in the night clubs and off base social gatherings.
I had a loose relationship through mutual acquaitances with an E-7 who constantly derided my mannerisms and speech because I was an enlisted hippy. I would query him on his beliefs and lead him to his inconsistencies and hypocrisy and it made him furious. Just one of many thousands of examples of the rift that was created between soldiers of that time, due to their ties back to civilian life.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 12, 2005 03:00 AMRocky said: “David,
I find it curious that the Republicans, supposedly the party of Constitution lovers and limited government, wants to take away my rights in order to “protect” me.”
Rocky, you hit the nail on the head with the word “supposedly”. They aren’t of course. All that is rhetoric to get votes to take the reins of power and use that power to expand the scope of government in whatever directions are necessary for those in office to create a sense of security for themselves and promote their own interests. It is true of all governments, from dictatorships to democracies. Adam Smith discusses the root of this phenomenon at length in terms of the “invisible hand” and “self interest” and “enlightend self-interest” in his two great literary works which almost NO one ever reads, The Theory of Moral Sentiment, and The Wealth of Nations.
I had the great fortune of a philosophy professor, Nikhil Bhattacharya, Ph.D. in Physics, Ph.D. in Philosophy, and a few other degrees, who made actually reading those texts a requirement to understanding democracy and America. It really is difficult to understand what passes today for democracy in America without understanding the wisdom of Adam Smith and his fundamental wisdom which has become corrupted by so many along the way.
That said, essentially self interest rules. But, differently today in many aspects than in the day of our nation’s founders. Then, self-interest ruled as well, but, the central theme, coming directly out of a Revolutionary War was, that what benefits the nation as a whole will benefit each individual as well. Today, in many ways that has been corrupted into “what benefits the elite, will benefit all those below, as well”.
There is a grand canyon of difference between those two fundamental principles of governance, and it is why I abhored the Reagan Presidency which solidified the latter principle in the adotption of the “trickle down” theory which I knew then, would lead this nation headlong away from democracy of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Republicans are philosophically elitists who essentially believe that by virtue of their wealth and church class roots, they are best suited to determine what is best for them and the rest of the country. As the past two elections have demonstrated, it is a philosophy wittingly or not, shared by a slight majority of voters.
Democrats are elitists too with their belief that classical academia and sophisticated discrimination of motive, intent, purpose and outcome justify their right to govern in an ethically superior manner than their Republican counterparts.
Both sides lack the experience and 1st hand witness of revolution and war which mandated belief in our founding fathers that personal sacrifice for the good of the nation would pay huge other benefits to posterity over the catastropic costs of war and civil dissolution.
In the absence of such 1st hand witness of the cost of civil war and civil dissolution, or failing memories of American cities in flames in the late 1960’s and American military shooting civilians in the streets, it would appear our nation divided is headed toward either civil dissolution or war an it is inevitable.
Those who fail to take into their hearts and minds the lessons of the past, are destined to repeat the mistakes of the past, for the heart of man does not change, self-interest is always in play and corruption by power of those in power is an absolute over the history of mankind’s attempts to govern the lives of others. Enlightened self-interest is hard work requiring years of study and a social context that motivates individuals to undertake that study. Our educational system has for decades been moving away for education aimed at enlightened self interest via the humanities, and ever more toward vocational expertise, whether it be specialization in an are of law or specialization on the factory floor, which is motivated not by the need for enlightenment, but, by the need for income.
This will not change until the cost of unenlightened self-interest leads Americans to become motivated once again by enlightenment as prerequisite to peace, a prerequisite to quality of life, a prerequisite to casting an intelligent vote that represents their interests instead of exploiting them, and a prerequisite to survive with freedom and dignity on each arm.
But rest easy. Suffering masses are prerequisite to civil war or civil dissolution, and the critical mass to such a catastrophic social event is still years away. Perhaps it will be your children who suffer and refuse to suffer no more, perhaps their children. So relax, there is no need for haste or change. Were good! For now!
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 12, 2005 03:47 AM[Comment deleted, this site is dedicated to rational discussion and debate of politics, not stumping for your particular religion. — WatchBlog Manager —]
Posted by: Tom at February 12, 2005 12:12 PMIt is too bad you do not understand history Mr. WatchBlog Mangager. My reference to the Bible was to show that history past, present and future is replete in the Bible. I was not stumping for a particular religion. You cannot determine my religion from the post that I sent. Once again I was using your criteria for “rational discussion and debate of politics” in sending my post. Ironically, many comments posted were not rational nor debatable. So be all of that. The lack of free speech and logic is quite evident.
Thanks for a brief bit of time anyway.
I agree with Tom. I can call people Nuts and get away with it see below.
“You know like you can’t buy and sell thing the religious nuts talk about all the time? I just don’t see it.” and Tom can refer to the Bible?
I think I’am out of here.
[References to the Bible as they pertain to the topic of a WB article, or a political issue being debated in an article is fine. Our archives have many references to religion and even some to the Bible, which were related to the WB political topic of the article.
Tom’s comment, as is evident by his statement, “My reference to the Bible was to show that history past, present and future is replete in the Bible.” demonstrates his belief in what he believes the Bible represents, yet, his comments made no reference to immigration policy or any other political topic being debated here. Off topic references like spam, advertisements, discussions having no bearing on the topic of a WB article are removed routinely and will continue to be.
For the sake of keeping this discussion on topic, any further discussion on Tom’s comment removal should be directed to Editor@Watchblog.com. Thank you.
— WatchBlog Manager —]
I hate to interrupt the liberal lovefest in chops’ general direction, but I missed the part where this bill outlines how we are all forced to take the ‘mark of the beast’. (Note to watchblog manager: I believe that qualifies as a relavant reference to the [in whisper] b-i-b-l-e.)
“Set in motion…the next step…” All pure speculation, and not even germain to the point of the bill, controlling the borders and immigration, which is explicitly a federal responsibility.
If you think an ID card will bring the four horseman of the apocalypse upon us, (Sorry Dave, I couldn’t resist) then you haven’t looked at your Social Security card lately. It is your national id. Just a very poorly implemented one.
It is possible to have better control of the border and better information about who is coming into our country without being a police state.
My personal view on immigration is that at the same time we tighten security we should allow more legal immigration. This issue is one of the most ridiculous on both sides. I have no problem with anyone coming to America for a better life, better jobs, and a better future. I’d like to think that if I’d been born in some third world country, like say, France, for instance, that I would have gotten to America anyway I can; legally or illegally if necessary, but ‘born’ to be an American in either case.
But I think you’ll find that some do not agree with this on ‘economic’ grounds i.e. that that equals ‘stealing jobs’ from Americans. But I guess, in my mind, anyone who wants to come to America to work hard and succeed is already an American in everything but name anyway.
I think the benefit of knowing who’s who outweighs the cost to privacy that may entail. Though chops has not at all made it clear to me how much more it would infringe on my privacy to have a national id in addition to how my privacy is already compromised by a state id so that I may continue enjoying the privilege of driving, or a business license so that I may enjoy the privilege of buying and selling, or a fishing license so that I may enjoy the outdoors and waterways of this fine nation, or any of the thousands of other ways that various government require me to register, from birth in some cases (Social Security).
But somehow having a national id will end all freedom in America? C’mon.
Have you ever heard of a little agency called the IRS? Freedom? I’m not sure there’s anything left to take. If that’s what you’re worried about.
Posted by: ericsimonson at February 13, 2005 03:32 AMThe social security card is your national ID. When you apply for a loan, your work has it, credit cards, etc.
Posted by: Randy P at February 13, 2005 07:56 AMAs I understand it, there is no judicial review for anything in this Bill. This will be like the Communist Witchhunts of the 50’s. People will disappear and no Writ of Habeas Corpus will be allowed.
Posted by: Aldous at February 13, 2005 10:28 AMEric -
I agree with you that legal immigration should increase, and illegal immigration should be prevented. Where this bill is right is to say that the 3-mile gap in the border fence should be put in place regardless of the environmental regs (that’s all that means Aldous; your comment extrapolates beyond what the bill’s text merits).
Where the bill goes wrong is (a) by usurping states’ rights on some pretty important issues and (b) usurping citizen’s rights. You may have a social security card, but you don’t need it to get on a plane or drive a car! There’s a big difference between keeping track of who is a citizen and keeping track of where they are at all times. We’re moving toward the latter, and it’s both wrong and dangerous.
Someone above made the comment that if you don’t break the law, you have nothing to worry about. That’s true in the near-term. But as I stated in the post, this bill represents a further transfer of power to the government from the people. Increasingly, they’ll be able to make laws that we the people don’t approve of. If they can disregard the intent of the constitution regarding states’ rights, they can likewise disregard it on natural human rights. Once the government does not need our (long-run) approval to change the law, we are no longer politically free.
Posted by: Chops at February 13, 2005 02:31 PMAldous,
As I understand it, there is no judicial review for anything in this Bill. This will be like the Communist Witchhunts of the 50’s. People will disappear and no Writ of Habeas Corpus will be allowed.
All I can say is: huh?
Hopefully the left will continue with such extreme and delusional accusations.
Posted by: ericsimonson at February 13, 2005 04:34 PM
