Slashdot Mirror


National ID May Have Killed Immigration Bill

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.

5 of 481 comments (clear)

  1. Re:The National ID did not do it... by Stiletto · · Score: 0, Flamebait


    So, you're arguing that one group of poor people who don't pay income taxes deserves educational training, medical care and job training, but another group of poor people who don't pay income taxes don't deserve them, simply because they were born on the wrong side of an imaginary line?

  2. Re:Is amnesty so bad? by megaditto · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    You are forgetting you are talking about 20 million people who are already here. They aren't rich as it is, but if you cut off their income what do you think will happen?

    Do you realise that you are proposing to forcibly starve 20 million people and children? Turn 20 million homeless? To give 20 million helpers to the mob/drug lords/gangs/anything that will feed the 'illegal' families?

    More importantly, Mexico does not want these illegals any more than you do. And how would you prove whom to send where? Most 'illegals' don't have their name/number/country of birth tattooed on their forehead, you know. Most people will not leave because they have nowhere to go since they have no home outside of here.

    What you are proposing would deter new immigrants from coming here illegaly, it would not get those already here to leave.

    --
    Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
  3. Re:Is amnesty so bad? by shaitand · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    You might have a claim if you said 1 in every 20 people were hispanic but most hispanics are legal. We are talking about the illegal immigrants. Fortunately, most illegals are hispanic and they are mostly concentrated in certain areas.

    At this rate, we can actually just wait for them to form another march. It is unfortunate that they marched in Cali though. If they had marched in Florida then concealed carry weapons holders could have opened fire. It is legal for you to use your weapon to stop felonies and treason is on the list. If waving a mexican flag and proclaiming that you are going to take over our country isn't treason I can't imagine what is.

    I know I know, Mexican's believe california is rightfully part of mexico and belongs to them. That is treason too. AFAIK its the only federal crime that demands the death penalty. These people should consider themselves lucky if we only deport them.

  4. Re:You have got to be kidding... by ravenshrike · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Bwahahahaaaa. This congress has the lowest approval rating ever seen(worse than Bush's), and you think the dems will gain more power in the 08 elections. Heh. Too damned funny.

  5. Re:Internal borders vs external borders. by kabocox · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    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.

    That's not really possible. Well yes it is, and I'll describe how you can go about it without having to have papers on you. First "every" and I do mean every legit, legal person would need to be scanned into some massive database with finger prints, foots prints, retina scans, DNA, Name, photos, and other ID info. You then setup a system in the hospitals that every new born is registered into the system at birth. Every police officer and/or government offical would need a fingerprint/ID scanner to scan you to determine who you are. There you don't have to carry papers any more. If any one is picked up and found not in the system, then automatically they are an illegal alien and need to be deported to parts unknown.

    I didn't say you'd like the solution. The thing is that police/government folks have no idea who is actually a US citizen unless you have a government ID somewhat verifying you.