Slashdot Mirror
More States Rebel Against Real ID Act
Spamicles writes with a link to a Lawbean post about more rebellion against the Real ID act. New Hampshire and Oklahoma have joined Montana and Washington state in passing statutes refuting the ID act's guidelines. "However, these actions could eventually lead to drivers licenses issued in these states to not be accepted as official identification when boarding airplanes or accessing federal buildings. In addition to these four states, members of the Idaho legislature intentionally left out money in the budget to comply with the Act."
Emphasis mine. That's what makes this so unpalatable to the states, just like "No Child Left Behind" or welfare reform. The United States Government is saying "we're going to create these standards and you are going to pay to implement them" and the states are naturally balking at having to foot the bill for Washington D.C.'s foolishness.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
Enough of the federal government spitting on the 10th amendment in the name of the WOT...
. . for contacting me about the electronic surveillance of people in the United States by the National Security Agency (NSA). I share your serious concerns about this program.
I am pleased that pressure put on the President by the newly-elected Congress, as well as the American public, made clear that our Constitutional rights aren't negotiable. In January 2007, Attorney General Gonzales announced that after an internal investigation, the administration would end electronic surveillance of American citizens unless it received a warrant. This means that the administration must petition the FISA Court if it wants to electronically monitor U.S. citizens.
It is critical that we relentlessly pursue terrorists who seek to do us harm. However, we must make sure that we do not undermine the very rights and way of life that we are seeking to protect. While I do not sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will continue to relay your concerns to my colleagues. I will continue to support strong congressional oversight and closely monitor any new developments on this issue.
Thank you again for contacting me. Please feel free to do so again whenever I can be of assistance to you and your family.
Sincerely,
Debbie Stabenow
United States Senator
DS:jm I wonder which Washington she's been spending her time in.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
They change their license format every 5-10 years anyway. Having a unified repository of ID's is something that should have been done to begin with. They didn't say the changes had to be done tomorrow, and the pros outweigh the cons.
Passports are the same throughout the states, license plates are the same.. social security numbers are the same... What's the big deal? Who is it hurting? Basically immigrants and those who don't want to be followed by "the man".
"Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
To support the impeachment of the biggest recipient of weapons bribes.
Pax,
K. Trout, C.E.O.
I have a 5 cult following, and if I want to make a state for one of my groups, does this mean I have to get a different ID for each of my identities in each of the 5 cults? If I'm in a state that accepts this new federal law...I guess not. I win when privacy loses!
Not too long after they stop accepting IDs from those states that refuse to take part in Real ID I can see something of a Civil rights thing happening.
Just how long have we got to wait until the Neo conservative ruling class get deposed?
I'm something of a fan of Pulp SF, particularly the early stuff, your EE 'Doc' Smith and the like. His worlds were full of the kind of people who would love this stuff. Fanatically loyal, good clean white folk, ready to believe, and die for, anything a government told them. They were also undeniably Aryan in nature.
When it comes to fiction, especially fiction of such historical importance to the world of SF I am willing to dismiss such concepts as products of a different age and enjoy traversing the early history of SF. However, to see people trying to change America in such a way that only the fictional American Aryans of the 1930's would accept it as is, is a frightening thing indeed.
...at lest in my state. Unfunded mandates, as they are called, are definitely nothing new. And states are no saints in this matter if they are anything like New Jersey. (sorry, have to call out my home state)
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
So far, it is mostly small states that are rebelling but bigger states need to rebel like California, Texas, NY. Unfortunately, CA is looking at going along to get along.
On the unfunded mandate, you will get abused and pay for the privilege thereof !
Separate from this issue is the precedant of states refusing to follow the orders of the Federal Government. What will be REALLY interesting is if these states succeed and then try the same strategy with other federal statutes the states don't like.
i guess we're headed that'a way.
You're right and wrong. *Some* states are not balking at the concept, only the price. Montana and Washington State are treditionally independent. But most states simply don't want to pay for it, "foolishness" has nothing to do with it.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
standards that apply to government: Once it's made into law, it's very difficult to change it. Once it's written down, getting it taken off is nearly impossible, and that applies to names on lists as well. Once a program is implemented, the inertia is difficult to stop or reverse, for all the political and financial reasons that it is difficult to get rolling in the first place. If there is an opportunity for big business or big government to abuse something, they will, sooner or later. The ONLY way to prevent the inevitable abuses of national IDs is to never have them at all. No matter what minor benefits it might be believed they would bring, the opportunity for abuse is far greater. If that opportunity exists, it WILL be exploited. This program needs to be stomped to death and never repeated.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Quick! We must elect President Lincoln to a 3rd term!
"However, these actions could eventually lead to drivers licenses issued in these states to not be accepted as official identification when boarding airplanes or accessing federal buildings"
Yeah, cause entire states are not going to be able to buy plane tickets or enter federal buildings. I see that happening... I mean after all it's not like the airline industry has any lobbyists in Washington, and it's not as though the federal government will notice if suddenly all their employees in a given state stop showing up for work. I think we'll see that law either repealed or changed before we see entire states being told they can't fly...
I am from Oklahoma.
One of the reasons we don't want to spend all the $$ to comply with RealID, is that
we just completely redid our driver's licenses in the last 4 years, at a significant cost.
The new ones are much harder to fake, and have both index finger's prints electronically bar coded on them.
Our ID's have plenty of info about us now, no more is necessary.
The Fed, just needs to mind its own broken fences, instead of telling us how to keep ours from falling.
I suspect that the airlines will shortly require Passports to travel with. They will allow for one of the licenses to work as well, but more than 50 states implement the license, then almost certainly, they will again use tax dollars as a wedge. After all, if it is not going to 49 states, then it can go to their state.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
So the feds are going to tell a few million residents of these states that suddenly as of such and such a date they can no longer fly? Sure, like that's going to happen. We're already at or near the tipping point on this -- if even a few more states say "no thanks" it could hopefully sabotage the whole thing. This could turn into a major federal power vs. states rights battle -- after all, licensing is a function traditionally assigned to the state level.
Realistically, though, I think sooner or later the Real ID monster will be unleashed, but after some additional delays and perhaps a grace period tacked on. At the very least, I want to see this debacle delayed until after July 2010. Cos that's the earliest that *I* can renew my license by mail for another seven and a half years (I can renew 18 months prior to expiration plus 6 full years beyond that). Then I'm set until January 2018, by which time I'll be 60 and too old to give a shit any longer.....
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
How many lives does it take for you to give up freedom?
(IANAL)
The next decade is going to get REAL interesting, here in the states, and everywhere else in the world, too.
What a time to be alive!
Fuck the real ID.
The privacy concerns or the fact the the US Government has no right to issue us all "papers". This should be handled at the state level, like it is now.
Or rather, commercial airplanes. I don't believe such rules apply to private or chartered planes, such as in which them rich peoples fly...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
we already have a federal ID. It's called a passport. ...and nobody is required to have one unless they are entering the country (even then, there are alternate options), and nobody is expected to carry it everywhere and produce it on demand.
By the Constitution, nobody is required to produce ANY paperwork (IDs included) for the feds unless a judge specifically says a specific person has to under specific conditions. "Real ID" grossly violates the Constitution.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
A stupid law that was never debated, that will line up people outside DMV offices is every state, should be killed. I have an aging notarized copy of my birth certificate, but I am not sure that it would be accepted. I dimly suspect that this is intended to screw a lot of people out of their right to vote.
Who might not be able to produce the needed proof of citizenship? Old folks and poor folks. It is like the voter picture ID law on steroids.
Problem is, is that it doesn't add much to security, since professional terrorists will have the document manipulation down pat.
> I'm old enough to remember the country-wide 55 mph. federal mandate that was put in place durng to the last energy crises. States that did not comply with the mandated maximum speed limit (I think Wyoming was one) lost their federal funding for highways and transportation.
Why don't states just then make the federal income take unconstitutional in their state. If the federal gvt withholds funding taken from federal taxes, then why should citizens of state X pay the federal income tax? States could pass a constitutional amendment making it illegal for the fed to collect income tax in their state and illegal for companies to withhold income or report it to the IRS. Put in a "succession clause" if the fed tries to subvert the state constitution and see what happens.
I'm quite proud of my home state for rebelling on this. Washington D.C. is lost to the American people as an instrument for sensible government. The state houses are the only avenue left to us if simply by virtue of being within a day's drive, and of our legislators as being mostly people with day jobs who aren't trapped in a beltway bubble.
I once turned the tide for a crucial state reform bill by grabbing four friends and handing out flyers for 3 hours in front of supermarkets in certain legislators' districts. Inside of two days their offices received calls from ~150 constituents demanding to know why they weren't going to require members of the state legislature to show up for work. They usually get 5 calls on any issue, so they were taken aback and promptly decided to support the bill.
You can't do that with Senators and members of the House of Representatives. They don't give a crap what you and I think, unless we can threaten/promise 1000's of $$$/votes.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
So far my state, Texas, has been rather silent on the subject of RealID. Link
But I do hope they do stand against it, not just for privacy or any of the other, but for the concept that the states would stand up for a cause. Against the federal government.
As all of the other pro national ID posts i'm sure this will be flagged as flamebait, but none the less I feel I should say something. What's the problem with having a national ID system? From the programming/database aspect alone all of us (especially on this site) should recognise the need for a better system. All of my information is currently stored in about 15 different state/federal databases already. What's wrong with putting them in one database and giving me a card to access all of my information? Are you worried about the federal government having control of that information? do you think they dont already? of course they can... I actually like the idea of having a social security like ID card that puts all of my state/federal information in one place so our government can keep up with the pace of information these days. But i'm sure that's just flamebait.
yes, without a country. if they have no ID, they can't do business with the feds.
at which point those states can withhold taxes and national cooperation and "go private," which message the bushers can probably understand. they wouldn't catch on if those states "seceded from the Union." but going private, they'd probably get awards.
if anybody from the US was allowed across the borders to present the awards.
it's all totally ridiculous. going to the brink of national bankruptcy to force states out. we once had a war to prevent that kind of idiocy.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
How many laws are there that require you to spend money out of your own pocket? You're required to have car insurance, if you have a car, in every state I know of (strangely enough, most states require you to have uninsured motorist coverage as well). You're usually required to have your home inspected before you sell it, in many states you're required to purchase a helmet if you want to ride a motorcycle. And don't get me started about homeowners associations and municipal zoning laws. They require you to have this many trees in your yard, and that many square feet of grass, etc...
Not that I think all of these laws are a bad idea, or unnecessary, but many of them are just stupid, and the only reason the gov't ever passed them is because they won't be footing the bill (actually, they usually create a new source of income in the form of fines for noncompliance).
Not quite.
States rather have the Fed do the taxing and then point up the finger of blame. If you look at the budgets for the last few presidents you'll see that the fed returns about as much as it takes from each state already (except for Alaska which gets a bit more). It doesn't matter were you get taxed. In fact, I'd rather get taxed locally for this kind of stuff, that way I know I'm only paying for my State or town as appropriate.
If funding is really the main issue, why don't we just buy a few less Stealth Bombers which cost roughly $2B a piece.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-2_Spirit A secure ID would help keep us much safer than a few extra bombers. Bombers didn't help us much on 9/11 but it is likely that a secure ID would have made it much more difficult for the terrorists and may have prevented the attacks altogether.
/ information/benefits_of_a_secure_license/
"The 9/11 Commission recommended national identification standards for driver's licenses as a way to prevent future terrorism in its report to Congress." http://www.secure-license.org/cms/index.php/plain
http://www.upi.com/Zogby/UPI_Polls/2007/04/22/anal ysis_us_public_supports_real_id_law/
A new poll shows that 70 percent of Americans support the introduction of national security standards for driver's licenses under the Real ID Act.
Oh, and another reason this is a bad idea? Congress created it as an unfunded mandate. They're requiring the states to do it, but not providing any of the funding that would make it possible. Our local governments are already strained and citizens on the verge of staging property tax revolts. Where's this extra money going to come from?
Even if I wasn't against this because it violates my rights, I'd fight it because it's fiscally irresponsible. Any conscientious lawmaker will do the same.
What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
"The public policy established by Congress in the Real ID Act of 2005, Public Law 109-13, is contrary and repugnant to Articles 1 through 10 of the New Hampshire constitution as well as Amendments 4 though 10 of the Constitution for the United States of America."
Dang, so how do they *really* feel about it?
If a driver's license is used as an ID, what do people who can't/won't drive use?
(I'm sorry, I moved to the United States recently, and missed the whole REAL ID Act legislation got passed in 2005)
:-))) and nobody in Europe is complaining those passports are used to "track everyone".]
:-)
I for one am definitely against anything "Big Brother". However, as far as I have been able to read up on this (a lot of articles have tons of fluff or otherwise useless information), I don't see the Big Brother angle or why people are so against a sort of national ID...
This is what I (think I) know:
1) all states should put the same information on the ID/license (in fact, there are only minimal guidelines, states could put more, but even if it would be a strict list (-> all of these and nothing but)).
2) all states should have the same (document) requirements to issue an ID/license.
3) states should share their motor vehicle database with the other states.
[Btw, The countries part of the European Union have a "unified" passport, in fact, apart from specification of country of origin (in several ways, some to help prevent counterfeits, most of which were demanded by the US after 9/11 (not meant as a complaint, just giving some "historical" information
I guess my question is: what do people have against a national ID?
Provided it is just that...meaning the 50 different state ID/license designs are replaced with one, uniform ID/license (for example with a map of the US on the background and the issuing state highlighted, as well as noted in writing on the ID/license), the same information is displayed in the same way, optionally additional information each state wishes to add is on the back, etc...
I don't see how just uniforming the information on and look of the ID/license would help or even facilitate "tracking" everyone...seems to be me it would be just as down right easy now, since my RI driver's license identifies me just as uniquely now as would a National driver's license (or my green card for that matter)
My main reason for asking is: as far as I can tell, there are no negative, only positive side-effects to a national ID/license (that assertion is based on what I know about it). Since so many are adamant against it, I feel I must be missing something, since I am at least as anti-Big Brother as the next guy
Chance favors the prepared mind...especially when you Question Authority
Like everything else in this sad republic, the only thing that REALLY motivates anyone is money.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Just ask the former Confederate Union states.
Sadly, yes, not only is our Governor too stupid to wear his seatbelt, but he hasn't done much to stop the unfunded mandates, nor lower property taxes significantly.
And what of the Eminient domain cases there? Like the one that took a bunch of people's houses away from them and gave a drug company the property.
FalconShould there be a Law?
most states require you to have uninsured motorist coverage as well
I've never seen or heard states require uninsured motorists coverage for auto insurance. The only tyme I've seen it required is when a loan is taken out to buy the vehicle, the loan companies require uninsured coverage.
FalconShould there be a Law?
While I support the Free State Project I'd find it hard to live in New Hampshire for that long as I love being on the coast. Now if it were in Vermont, or NH and Vermont were switched around, I could.
"Government is not the solution to our problem; Government *is* the problem" -R. Reagan |
Yet Reagan expanded federal government especially federal law enforcement.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I assume, however, that NH requires and issues drivers licenses? Has restaurant health codes? Anti-monopoly practices? Liquor and pornography laws? A whole slew of laws, rules and regulations, just like every other "nanny" state?
The aim of the Free State Project was to find a state where liberty loving people could move to who would then turn the state around on it's head and eventually get rid of all these laws, rules, and regulations. NH comes as close to this already as most any state, and the project organizers wanted to get thousands to move there who would then tip over politics there.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Really...All the states need to do is... Require people to get a US passport. Pass the burden over to the Federal Government.
Yea, the states need an internal passport like the old Soviet Union. NOT!!! Having a passport is a good idea but it should be voluntary not required.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Better not think that Gov. Rick Perry wouldn't call a special session to enact RealID and change any other statutes necessary to adopt it. Most politicians here were quite decidedly gung-ho on the prospect of enacting RealID despite that the constituant citizenry is against it.... because the overwhelming vast majority of the politico-powerbase amongst the Texas state legislature is in the hip pockets of big corporations... not citizens... and the big corps want RealID.
So you're saying that nobody should have to implement security standards that the government issues?
Which government? Does it have the Constitutional authority to create those standards or mandates?
What would happen if the airlines or other vulnerable operations refused to follow security standards, or just came up with their own?
The market will decide a winner. If an airline doesn't have a good enough security policy they will be subject to lawsuits and/or will have little if any passengers. Those airlines with a tough security policy will get those passengers while passengers who don't want to fill out application forms and have their background investigated will fly an airline that doesn't do these.
FalconShould there be a Law?
You'd probably get a significant increase in visitors from outside the US as well. I can't speak for terrorists, but I know that I have declined to visit the US on both professional and personal grounds since 9/11 -- and not because I think terrorists are going to fly my plane into a building.
Last night CNN had a report on this. Because of the tightening of airport and airplane security foreigners are coming to the USA less than before 911. Travel industry officials said this reduction in foreigners coming to the USA has hurt them financially.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Perhaps you've forgotten the fact that all US Passports will eventually (within the next few years) contain an RFID chip, so you'll already be tracked wherever you go with that.
Until the passport is dropped in the road then runover.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I don't ever remember an 18 year old drinking age.
I do. When I was 18 I was legally able to drink alcohol for one month before a new law came into effect that raised the age limit to 19. Latter it went to 21. And the thing is is I spent tyme in Germany and there parents could order wine or beer for the children in a restaurant legally. That's a big problem in the US, because parents are no longer legally able to serve teens an occasional alcoholic drink they don't learn to drink responsibly then all of a sudden when they turn 21 they go on a drinking bing.
FalconShould there be a Law?
If you're found wandering about as an adult without adequate ID in my state (Florida), that alone is enough to send you to jail until such time as you can produce some documentation confirming who you are
This must be new, less than 10 years old. I grew up in FL and while living there there was no requirement to carry id, you only needed a dl while driving.
I do understand the state's right to require it
I don't, it's only needed if you want a police state. And requiring an id is an assault on anonymity, which some Supreme Court rulings have said is essential to the First Admendment's right to free speech and free assembly. If the state, political entity, can require a person to show id at any tyme this limits their willingness to engage in political actions or protests.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I honestly want to know why we should need an ID to fly anyways? Who cares who you are? You already have been subjected to invasive searches and scanings and x-rays - even with machines that can expose you naked - all in the name of safety, so why concern ourselves with identification? It will be forged easily by those that want to move around desperately enough, regardless. Identity only really matters in a society where reputation matters and in that society I would be allowed to have my pocket knife on a plane.
At first they told us we needed a national ID card for Security. When it came to light that people holding ID cards can STILL commit crimes. Terrorists foregn and national can get legal ID's *then* set off there bombs.
So they changed the story now we need this for illegals.. and ONLY illegals will get this.. what a crock.. they are illegal.. they are breaking the current laws.. why on earth would they follow this one law? Laws are not magic.. they dont make criminals disapear.
I'm so angry at my government I'm frothing at the mouth.
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
The Texas Legislature just recessed until January 2009; by the state constitution, the legislature can only meet for 140 days every two years
It used to be like this in many states. Most people elected actually worked for a living and they couldn't afford to be away from work too long. I would fully support a similar admendment to the USA Constitution. Shorter though maybe, say like from January through March. Then require a test to make sure every politician reads each bill before they can vote on it.
FalconShould there be a Law?
[Btw, The countries part of the European Union have a "unified" passport, in fact, apart from specification of country of origin (in several ways, some to help prevent counterfeits, most of which were demanded by the US after 9/11 (not meant as a complaint, just giving some "historical" information :-))) and nobody in Europe is complaining those passports are used to "track everyone".]
Are those passports required for anything other than international travel? I bet not, however there are a number of things the Real ID Act will require this id for. Such as to open a bank account. Then once people get used to it there'll come "Papers please" while just walking down the sidewalk.
I guess my question is: what do people have against a national ID?
Two things, "Papers please" and the Constitution of the USA does not give the government any power to mandate a national id.
I am at least as anti-Big Brother as the next guy :-)
I wouldn't say you're that much anti-Big Brother if you can't see the ramifications of a national id. But then again coming from Europe I'm not supprized the way things are there.
Chance favors the prepared mind...especially when you Question Authority
Why not question why government wants to mandate ids, especially when they haven't proven ids will make anyone safer and more secure. And like Benjamin Franklin said, paraphrasing, "Anyone willing to give up a little freedom for security will neither get nor deserve either."
FalconShould there be a Law?
but after hearing that Bush is working to have a North American Union come into existence in the near future, I know that the REAL ID is only going to help that come to fruition. The US doesn't need to merge with Canada and/or Mexico when it has survived as a sovereign nation for over 200 years just fine. Our economy is better than both of those countries combined so the economical reason people use to defend the formation of the NAU is ludicrous. The REAL ID and the delay of a border fence are 2 components to having the NAU become real. The REAL ID must be stopped.
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
If you oppose this, vote for Dr. Ron Paul for President. He is absolutely opposed to ANYTHING of this nature and voted against it.
Libertas in infinitum
Yep - the government of China has representation in Washington, DC but the government of Texas does not.
This is why our Senators should be delegates from each state legislature.
Libertas in infinitum
License plates across the states are the same, and DON'T carry a different format
Yes different states have different license plates. I have license plates from two different states and though they are basically the same size and shape the design is different.
Having a unified set of ID's, just like the military, is not a bad idea.
BS! Papers Please!
People are fighting this shit because of politics, not because it's a good or bad idea.
I am against any national id because I believe in the Constitution of the USA and because I believe in liberty and small government, ie I am a Classical Liberal
. FalconShould there be a Law?
go grab a history book (or two) and read up on how America got to be where it is today.
While I generally agree with this post of your's the history book part is tricky. Depending on what books are picked they may say different things.
FalconShould there be a Law?
If a law is created by the government, or even a proposition by a different political party... it doesn't matter if it's a good idea. It will be picked apart due to the political side who created it, just to make them look bad.
One way to evaluate whether a law is good or bad is to imagine your political foes having the same power. If you don't want them having it it probable bad. Some of the laws we have after 911 Clinton asked for as well, they were bad then and they still are.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Wouldn't it be kind of cool to be banned from ever entering a Federal Court?
Organization: alphabetical, sometimes numerical or messy
So if a almost blind "free" idiot decides to drive a car and kills me, or a dirty restauranteur makes me get thypoid or some other east sickness, there is nothing to defend the innocent, unsuspecting public?
The word "anarchy" is ringing on my head.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
.... we already need an official photo id for traveling in planes.
I use my passport, but alas, I travel a lot internationally, thus I am disciplined regarding this.
Other people use local (as in country) forms of identification (drivers licenses mostly), which are not centrally linked in any way (although the scumbag Tony Blair and his cronies are working hard to centralize this, starting with us, Johnny Foreigner types, as the obvious soft target. Bastards).
You don't need to wait 12 weeks to travel locally. You just need to make sure you always have a passport that is valid. A bit of discipline should be enough to ensure this.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And they do not know state borders (unless you think an Al Quaeda operative will have a GPS on board to ensure they don go astray. Oh wait, their target may be on another state).
Given the situation above, the issue of identifying passengers becomes a Federal one in the US and an international one pretty much elsewhere. If I was in charge of the Fed Gov in the US (ha,ha,ha) I am sure as hell that I would want my own mechanism to ensure people are who they say they are, I have no problem with that.
The problem IMHO is the tool they want to use. They should use passports, they want the Big Brother approach that encroaches in everybody's privacy.
As for "spur of the moment" flights, pulease, give me a frigging brake. I do it regularly, I just make sure I always have a valid passport. If it would take me 12 weeks to renew it then I would start the renewal procedure 12 weeks before expiry date. To do this once every 10 years (or one every 5, as we Mexicans have to do) is a minuscule price to pay frankly.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The U.S. border security system should be integrated into a larger network of screening points
The government can't stop "illegal aliens" from crossing the US Mexican border. Yet crossing the US Canadian border is much easier. There are a lot of roads crossing the border between the Great Lakes and Puget Sound in Washington, British Colombia. And many of them don't have any check points. Living in Minneasota I can drive right into Canada and back without seeing any border agent. And there's hundreds if not thousands of miles I can hike across the border.
The President should direct the Department of Homeland Security
BS, the Department of Homeland Security, which sounds like the Department of the Fatherland, or Motherland, Security should be abolished.
Extending those standards among other governments could dramatically strengthen America and the world's collective ability to intercept individuals who pose catastrophic threats.
As well as track political dissidents or those the authorities don't like.
Want further proof?
Proof? That's no proof, all it is is recommnedations. Meanwhile, by all data being in one database it means anybody who cracks the db will have access to all the ifo instead of having to break into a bunch. It also allows the authorities to track political dissidents easier.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I don't care if someone is focused on this quarter or not, that's up to them and their company investors. It makes no difference to anyone else.
It should matter to everyone, afterall it can potentially affect everyone. Don't think so? It's in a company's short term interest to not clean up toxic waste. But it's in others' interest for it to be cleaned up. What if the company isn't going to survive because of short term interests? It's in the interest for the employees to try to correct what's bad so they can keep their jobs. However if they do lose their jobs then there will be more competition between those with jobs and those without, those without may depress wages.
Simply it's in shareholders, some of whom are also workers, interest as well as most everyone else's interest to think about the long term. Only those who don't care about the future don't need to be concerned.
But if they're achieving financial goals by shortchanging security or maintenance, then that's a problem for people OUTSIDE the company -- it has nothing to do with finances,
I'm guessing you don't understand what I previously stated, it is possible for a comany to have a lawsuit filed again them which could cost more than taking corrective actions, ie only thinking about the short term. That being so I see no reason to keep up with conserving with you, you seem to keep disregarding what I have said or twistingh it around.
FalconShould there be a Law?