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.
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 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
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"
The fact that you are required to show ID to travel by air so they can check their "no fly" list and deny you the right to travel to a protest rally is proof enough of the danger of any ID card. Next is biometrics so you don't even need an ID.. they're already doing it to international visitors. And, yeah, I guess eventually they'll relax those laws that say a cop can't stop you for no reason and they'll be free to put up checkpoints on the roads. Around then you'll have a "no drive" list.
But hey, don't listen to the warnings.. just keep letting your country turn into a totalitarian regime.
How we know is more important than what we know.
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
It always brings to mind the tale of Joe Foss. Joe was once prevented from boarding a plane because he had an unacceptabe metal object in his personal possesion.
The security guard, with limited command of english explained to this winner of the Congressional Medal of Honor why that very piece of metal was a security threat in today's world. As Joe had almost laid down his life to preserve such "freedoms" he was a good citizen, and missed his flight... Freedom. it was a nice thing once. now, its a pencil push away....
- Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
REAL ID bill just specifies which IDs can be used for federal identification purposes (board a plane, collect certain funds/post bail, enter certain federal buildings). If you don't need to fly, cross the border, or post bail, you don't have to get this kind of ID.
With this bill, everybody would be de facto required to have such an ID or be jailed and deported. With this bill, nobody could get a job, marry, or vote without a REAL ID. Again, to merely live here, you would have to get an ID of the approved list.
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
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."