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.
Why does that ring a bell?
- Tempestdata
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?!?
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
the 9/11 terrorists had legitimate ID's.
This does nothing to stop terrorists or terrorism.
The immigration bill failed because of the number of citizens who made noise against the bill. My guess is that more than a few senators were scared into voting differently than they otherwise would have. For now, the people get their way.
-- Betting on the survival of the media industry is a serious risk. I advise investing elsewhere.
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?
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
I am so jaded about my countrymen that the following quote actually made me chuckle:
"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.
I'm not saying we need a national ID system, by any means.
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?
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
I may be stupid, but I just don't get it.
Even if the immigration bill is goes nowhere, however, the Real ID Act is still in effect. It says that, 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.What could possibly be bad about that (except administrational costs)? I don't live in USA, but I assume that you would need some sort of ID for all these things today as well (surely you can't collect social security without providing some sort of proof of who you are and that you actually are entitled to it?). What's the difference between having a federally approved ID card instead of just a state approved?
Anyone who has been following this issue for the past six weeks knows good and well that the audacity of the elected officials to ignore, debase, and belittle their constituents created the massive ground swell of dissenting voters. To claim that the Nation ID idea caused the defeat of this bill is ludicrous. But if the blurb had commented on talk radio and conservatives, this wouldn't be Slashdot, now would it?
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 via GreaseMonkey
is it that bad seein a hot chick again? if i see a hot chick walkin down the hall i dont say "repost"
While I can understand why privacy advocates would want to make this one of the 'main reasons' why the Immigration Bill failed, it was really not much of a deal-breaker. Sure, maybe some of the senators' votes were partially influenced by this, but there were literally dozens of amendments that were far more important which were the deal-breakers, such as:
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.
"We'll need 2000 crickets, 4 cans of Easy Cheese, and the fluid from 18 glowsticks for this plan to work...." - ph0n1c
Right here in the US. In fact, nearly all countries have a nationally issued, highly standardized ID that's used in all sorts of high-security situations, banking transactions,etc. It's called a passport. Everyone should have one anyway. Easy solution, and doesn't require one single new thing (and yes, I know, there's presently a backlog on US passport applications but This Too Will Pass).
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.
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
The fact that this bill was even proposed shows you how out of touch most of our elected officials are. They dont really care about you just about keeping there jobs. All of the Presidential candidates look the same on both sides of the aisle, except Ron Paul, someone who has actually read the Constitution.
Revolution is coming
I don't like the idea of national ID either, but I do think that non citizens in this country should probably have to have something like this.
The immigration bill died because Americans literally melted down the Senate's phone system because they don't want to grant amnesty now for border enforcement later since it's well known that the government has NO interest whatsoever in doing this.
The support for the legalization of criminal illegal aliens comes both from the far left (who sees a low skilled, uneducated underclass they can entice into a voting block with welfare programs) and the far right (who sees cheap labor that they can use to artificially depress wages). Polls show that 80% of the country opposes it.
Corporatism != Free Market
I get what he is saying there, no-one is saying the people here illegally are not real people who are worth something.
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I hear a lot of people taking credit for the demise of the immigration bill, and many people and groups did take issue with it over one provison or another. However I think the main reason it went down was because many people sharply realised the government is broken and not only NOT looking out for their interests but it has outright contempt for them. People have been dismayed that after the WTC attack and the Iraq war, border security remains relaxed in the extreme. Republican and Democrat voters were both against this bill, and when the vast majority of people were told their concerns were "secondary" if not selfish it became clear special interests were leading the government and not the people. A key element was that nobody believed the government would actually enforce any of the provisions included in the bill since they have such a miserable record of it in the past (and now its clear the governement can't even process passport requests or protect people from contaminated foods and they even hope to do a good job of that). With illegal immigration its been clear the powers that be don't want to stop it at all, and that the will of the people was seen seen as a hindrance that needs to be bulldozered if it can't be deceived. The main factor in the defeat of the bill was that many voters finally had the realisation that their government has kicked them to the curb. Lying and empty promises won't work anymore.
Kind of funny that I don't quite agree totally with the Republican or Democrat side on these issues.
I am in favor of cracking down on illegal immigration - not here legally, leave the country and go back home and apply to immigrate here. However, Real ID is not needed and it is a de-facto National ID card, plain and simple. There is no place for it here in the USA. There is no need for linking driver databases or the Tri-National Driver License Agreement. The Real ID should be repealed and anyone and everyone should Contact Congress and demand its repeal and do it while the Democrats control Congress. Rather than having laws that curtail civil liberties of US citizens, we need to first enforce the laws on the books instead of the typical attitude of looking the other way. Each time the gov't has a shortcoming of enforcing their laws, they pass more laws and we citizens get punished for it. This vicious cycle needs to end.
On the legal immigration issue, I have expressed interest in leaving the USA such as go live in New Zealand. However, I would do ths the legal way though. I went there after Christmas for vacation and when I went through immigration, my passport was stamped with a 3 month visitor permit with an expiration 3 months after the date of the stamp which is the arrival date. The stamp mentioned that if I was in NZ after 3 months (past the expiration date), I was subject to being deported from the country. If I wanted to be there longer than 3 months, I would have to go to NZ immigration and ask for an extention of the permit. At that point, they would extend it or not. If not, I have to leave before the expiration date. Simple rules. It is something we should expect of those who visit the USA or any other country. BTW, the permit did not allow me to earn an income there. That is a different permit which takes paperwork to get. I am too old (older than 30) to get a Working Holiday Permit like many young people get such as college students and recent graduates.
Mexico's social infrastructure is underwritten by profits from PEMEX, Mexico's oil company. Unfortunately, PEMEX's largest oil field, Cantarell, is in massive decline, according to PEMEX's CEO.
Based on a 1.9Mb/d consumption for Mexico, they will stop exporting oil in five years, say 2012... but, this would cut govt revenue around 7% per year, and shredding what little social infrastructure they have.
The result?
They will walk north.
You think Mexican immigration is bad now? Wait until 2015. I wouldn't be surprised if the USgov set up a 100 yard free fire zone on the southern border, or, they simply let everyone in, and drive the wages in the US down to Mexican levels.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
A majority of American's are against illegal immigration. A majority of American's are against profiling. So what alternative do you propose to identify legitimate citizens from illegal aliens? Your papers analogies is actually rather weak as a national ID only identifies you are a legal US Citizen. Whereas the point of "papers" in the past was to show where citizens had permission to move to and from and were checked frequently at checkpoints. The police would only be able to ask for it when there is clear evidence of crime. It wouldn't be required to be on your person, you just would for convenience like your driver's license to confirm your identity when needed.
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.
Letter To Iran
Yes, amnesty is so bad.
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
You do realize we would have to deport one out of every 10-20 people in America, don't you? With the kind of misery that would generate and the amount of wealth that would eat up, I am not sure even the nativist bigots would be willing to stay back here.
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.
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
> National ID May Have Killed Immigration Bill
Shame it didn't kill Immigration George.
Max.
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.
You don't have to deport them. You just make it impossible (or nearly so) for them to find work. They'll leave on their own, because they simply can't afford to stay.
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.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
You nailed it and I hope those who cry racism or xenophobia would just stop with the FUD. Very few people want to stop all immigration, but a lot want controlled, slow, legal immigration but NO illegals. We already HAD a full amnesty for illegals back in the 80s, it didn't work, they still ignored the laws, both the sneakers-in and the ones who hire them.
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.
I'm not sure that the objections to the border fence and RealID are the same, or are really being objected to by the same people.
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.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Millions of illegal people with jobs in this country and I can't find one
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.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
They're just looking for work to support their families and buy some booze and video games on weekends.
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.
I knew that this bill was going to fail, I don't blame people for supporting Lou Dobbs, the thing here is that I'm not going to leave, no illegal will do that, as I said on a different post hunger is stronger than fear and there's no doubt in my mind that the problem will be worst because we have more of the same, no work verification, no more border agents, no wall, millions of people living, working and doing everything with different names, different ID'S , things will remain the same, I know that I'm doing something wrong but I don't have any other choice. Yes I had a job in Mexico but I was making 500 dollars a month for a full time job, not very nice!! I don't work on the fields and you will never find me outside of Home Depot. I work as an IT manager here in sillicon valley, and yes there are people with college degrees in computer sciences from a 5 year university like me illegally working. (why do you think that I read slashdot) So what am I going to do now?? The same, I will keep working and keep smiling, life it's too short to be worried Peace!!
Sure, it will cost a few billion up front, but the long-term savings would be enormous
There would be no long-term savings. If you could convince every illegal immigrant in this country to leave, what you would see is a tremendous contraction of the US economy.
Cheap labor from undocumented immigrants lowers the price of goods and services for countless staple goods that you and I purchase every day, and illegal immigrants have created value in homes and commercial construction probably worth trillions of dollars that otherwise would not have been built. Cost savings from cheaper goods and services are spent on more new goods and services, which create jobs.
The whole thing is based on the deeply stupid idea that there are a fixed number of "jobs" in an economy, and if somebody is employed they will take up one of the "jobs" and that job will be used up now. If we kick out that person we will create a "job" for someone else. It's ridiculous. If someone is employed, their work will create value for their employers that creates jobs, and that persons income will be expended on goods and services that will create more jobs. That is how economies grow. Take that person away, and jobs will be destroyed, not created. Kicking out illegal immigrants would result in a gigantic contraction of the US economy, with fewer jobs for non-immigrants available until the economy can recover, and a general rise in price level for consumer goods across the board.
"The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs." Ted Kennedy, 1965, in support of the Hart-Celler Act.
"This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1 to 1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another amnesty bill like this." Ted Kennedy, 1986, in support of the The Immigration Reform and Control Act
"Now it is time for action. 2007 is the year we must fix our broken system." Ted Kennedy, 2007
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
Or maybe it was just the fact that the American public overwhelmingly resists granting amnesty to the 12 million people whose first action in the country was to snub the law and enter illegally, and the ass-clowns we've elected are concerned that this is a big enough issue to the voters that they feared for their political futures?
Ask not what your developer can do for you; ask what you can do for your developer.