Slashdot Mirror
REAL ID In Its Death Throes, Says ACLU
Dr. Eggman points us to Ars Technica for an article on the ACLU's view of the latest loosening and deadline extensions for REAL ID act compliance by the Department of Homeland Security. The rights organization believes that REAL ID is doomed. "The ACLU, which opposes the plan on civil liberties grounds, says that the many changes made since the Act was passed [in 2005] nearly 'negate the original intent of the program.' 'DHS is essentially whittling Real ID down to nothing... all in the name of denying Real ID is a failure,' said ACLU senior legislative counsel Tim Sparapani. 'Real ID is in its death throes, and any signs of life are just last gasps.'"
Good, or bad?
The rights organization believes that REAL ID is doomed.
Yeah, but they'll just do what they did with CARNIVORE. Wait a few months, change the name, and go about their plans as usual.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
DHS is at pains to point out that REAL ID is not a national identity card program but a set of regulations that direct states how to create their drivers' licenses and state ID cards. The program mandates digital photos, bar-coded information, and more stringent document checks, and it directs all states to link their databases with one another.
So with the bar-coded information we can't wipe the readability of the card with a magnet to stop the assholes at bars, liquors stores, etc from scanning us unnecessarily. Digital photos means that everyone's picture will be merged into the database of information shared with everyone else and "more stringent document checks" means that even more information will be in that same database. When all this information is linked how is it not a national ID database again?
I'm proud of the states that didn't crumble under the pressure of the Federal Government. At least someone out there is willing to tell them to fuck off -- regardless if it was over funding and not privacy implications.
When was the last time a government bureaucrat ever characterized some measure as a failure? They don't fail. They de-emphasize, re-prioritize or reevaluate. No failures. The non-failure of "REAL ID" is nothing new. Don't worry; Hillary is coming; she'll give you lots of free stuff. Yay!
I could certainly use that when purchasing uh... "goods" on wow. I hate the idea of buying "goods" from a man whos only pretending to be your normal wow player. Ya know, 19, blond, 38c, and wanting a real "man".
So basically, -1 troll/offtopic is really slashdots way of saying "I hate that you thought of something before me."
Real ID isn't dying because of privacy concerns. I think (at least in Michigan), it's about the cost for the states. States were ok with the plan until it hit them that it cost them money. Also let's consider the fact the states were asked to basically implement Real ID after they spent tons of money on homeland security.
...in its death throes, and any signs of life are just last gasps. That line belongs to Dick Cheney!*ducks*
I've heard that the insurgency is in its last throes.
Real ID is in its death throes, and any signs of life are just last gasps.
Didn't Cheney say the same thing about the insurgency in Iraq a couple years ago?
There are things that I think that the ACLU should fight. This isn't one of them though. RealID will never really go away. What it'll become is a federal requirement for the next incarnation of state DLs having to match a federal data standard. This is generally a good thing. What the really big up roar with the current RealID is that many states have gone their own way with having bar codes or digital information on their DLs, but only that state's systems can read the info off the card, and no one is willing to spend additional money just to conform to a federal standard. The main idea behind RealID is that you could have any of the 50 state's DL and they'd all "just work" in each other's and the federal computer system. Making "just work" would require lots of effort and money though.
Let's be honest there is no additional privacy problems with RealID. If you are in a position to be stopped and asked for State or Federal ID by a state or federal government official for government services, then you are either going to provide that information in a verbal or written form to those federal, state, or city officials or you won't be receiving that government service that you wanted. If you wanted to access a "controlled access area", then you could be "detained" while those government officials make sure that you aren't on any most wanted list, have outstanding warrants or on any special watch for lists.
If the government is hunting for you, they know your name and last known address. RealID was supposed to make it trivial to swipe a DL through a reader so all that DL info could be auto populated rather than manually entered. This is supposed to be a the huge privacy concern needing ACLU attention?
I propose a NO ID Act - everyone, turn in your UID's and become the glorious AC's we all really want to be. That will set an example, like a hunger strike. Except we can eat. And post as AC's.
Enlightenment is a pipe dream. So where's the pipe?
Identification is only as good as the people screening it. You can standardize driver's license standards all over the place, but in the end, if the guy who is supposed to be scrutinizing the id isn't paying attention or is typically lackadaisical, the id is worthless. It's a mechanism in any formulaic Hollywood movie, but it happens to be true. When was the last time a sales clerk bothered to look on the back of your credit card for a signature, or compare it to the one written on the slip/screen?
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
It's sometimes easy to forget about the work that organizations such as the ACLU do. I doubt most citizens are even aware of the kind of things that the ACLU actively fights for.
Organizations like these should be applauded for their work. We need more people willing to do this kind of thing.
Do the rest of us have FAKE IDs?
:)
Wish that'd happened 20 years ago when I could really use one.
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
Real ID will not be stopped and it is yet another infringement on our rights by the gov't. Add it to the ever-growing list of violations:
They violate the 1st Amendment by opening mail, caging demonstrators and banning books like America Deceived (book) from Amazon.
They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina.
They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps.
They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus.
They violate the 8th Amendment by torturing.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting 2 illegal wars based on lies and on behalf of a foriegn gov't.
Support Dr. Ron Paul (who raised a record $4 million yesterday) and save this great country.
Here is my OpenSocial: 263-18-3946.
Security through openness.
That all of the 9/11 terrorists had valid ID's
Granted, there might be some benefits to a unified ID across the 50 states, but combating terrorism isn't one of them. Instead, we should be asking if the other so-called benefits are worth the privacy invation and expansion of the Federal government that this program would entail.
Exactly why are my Federal tax dollars being used for this sort of thing, when it seems perfectly clear that my state government is already perfectly capable of issuing ID? The implications that someone is a terrorist if they can't produce the "satisfactory" identification document is a Constitutional problem, not a law enforcement issue.
Besides, what would an elderly father in law - who can't legally drive - do? Should he really be denied seeing his daughter married because he can't produce the ID to board a plane? This bill assumes (incorrectly) that everyone has an ID. That's not the way it's supposed to work.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
More anarchy, crime, terrorism, fear... or stronger government. There's probably a third way around this that involves smaller nations with fewer rules, but that's for political theorists, not technical writers.
technical writing / development
As long as they can get SOMETHING passed, they can expand it later.
Remember, there are TWO approaches.
#1. Demand EVERYTHING and then "compromise" by skipping the worst aspects. This is the fastest.
#2. Get ANYTHING passed and then go for "scope creep" to expand your authority. This is (usually) the most reliable. The old "frog in a pot".
I don't understand exactly how such IDs would be a violation of our privacy. We already have such identification. The key distinction is that it's a scattered mess of documentation, spread across a driver's license, passport, social security card and who knows what else? How exactly is conveniently condensing all that information onto a single card an invasion of privacy?
Most of the rest of the world already uses similar ID cards in one form or another and I've seen no issues. This proposed card simply takes advantage of existing technologies to converge identification onto one card. The thing with current ID cards in other nations is that citizens still need separate driver's licenses and still need to carry passports when traveling overseas. But I know that some nations are already in the process of developing more sophisticated cards.
I suppose identity theft is a concern. Beyond that, however, what's the concern? So the police can identify a person more quickly with these cards than they can with the current system. I can't help but think people are getting worked up about something they're already living with.
I'm a lot more concerned about the trend I see with our government trying to control every aspect of our lives, for the so-called good of the people. A modernized form of ID is a non-event.
or a restoration of the concept of innocent until proven guilty, trust of the public, and personal moral choice without any real fallout despite what fearmongers spout off about anarchy, crime, and terrorism.
funny, but the crime rates were fine before invasive policies were introduced, and they will be fine after they're repealed, assuming we dont (or haven't already) fall into fascism.
You see, I don't suspect my neighbors, and when i see someone who isn't white walking down the street I actually assume theyre doing something non-destructive, you know.. like just walking because they feel like it, or to give their dog exercise, or to head to a friend's or the store.
people who do will just need to bolt their doors, armor their houses, and spend the rest of their lives crawling on the floor commando style so the evil terrorists dont get them.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
The Feds want a 1984-style system of ID for citizens, but will do almost nothing about the flood of illegals coming across the Southern border.
The states are refusing to comply on the ID card, and are enforcing border controls.
This is a fascinating inversion of control.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
This all comes down to bad marketing on behalf of the DHS. With the proper ad campaigns, people would be less apprehensive.
Fade in of serious-looking woman.
"To stop people from making fake IDs, we called them "Real IDs."
"With Real ID, we can easily track minorities and other poor people. Anyone we can't track can be easily deported.
"With Real ID, you know when someone shows you a Real ID, it's a real ID. It's in the name."
Cut to Real ID logo.
The feds don't care if REAL ID dies, because the replacement is already here: the "WHTI" card (Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative). WHTI cards are like REAL ID on steroids, and all must have long range Radio Frequency ID. 4 states have already agreed to them and are in the pilot phase.
This is good news for us all. Let's hope the REAL ID dies and stays dead. We don't need anything even remotely resembling a national ID card. It is completely unamerican. Good riddance.
"Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death."
-- Adolf Hitler
Nazi Germany used captured government records fed into IBM's Hollerith machines to sort out whom they wanted to pick up for interrogation or simply send to interment camps. After this lesson you would think no citizens would tolerate their government keeping any kind of record on their people. If we really believe in Freedom, we certainly should not.
Anytime a government is doing something that could related to the evil practices of Hitler's government, the "something" should be put an end to. These days that would take a lot of cleaning up.
This should be applied to corporations in respect to their keeping customer information as well, which has been shown time and again to be dangerous to the customer when the records get in the wrong hands (which could be the corporation itself). It was one thing to "know your customer" by keeping information in the mind of a private businessman, riskier when they started noting it in business records and now with it stored online and shared, it is becoming out and out dangerous to the customers' financial and psychological well being and at times even putting their physical well being in jeopardy.
"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there's a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged, and it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air, however slight, lest we become victims of the darkness."
-- Justice William O. Douglas
But apparently the government isn't using theirs. The Bush administration renewed the student visas for the dead 9/11 terrorists.
They knew that these guys were in the country before 9/11. And incredibly, they even renewed their visas after 9/11. Call it administrative oversight, but if the government is so clueless that they re-issue a visa to a known, dead terrorist, what else could they screw up?!
Think about that for a while. The same government that can't tell a terrorist from a student trusts the FBI with assault weapons. If anything, they should have less information, not more, if only to limit the amount of damage they can do.
The biggest fault I find with the Left is that they lack a spine. It seems the Democrats have officially become the Party of Hate. They hate Bush, and cry fowl over all of the civil liberties he's trampled upon, yet rely on the Republicans to actually change anything. In case you didn't notice, it took a Republican (John McCain) to call the President on the carpet over the whole torture thing. Sure, the Left is willing to hate Bush, but they're content to let him do as he pleases! What betrayal!
Anyway, the excesses of the Bush administration are going to be cured by the next Republican President. Sure, the liberals whine about lost liberties, but (sadly) only the Republicans have the spine to actually step up and do something about it.
Sorry, didn't mean to get trolled like that, but freedom isn't exclusive to the Left, you know. Some of us conservatives believe in it too.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" was almost written as "life, liberty and property". The founding fathers were very strong believers in strong property rights as a needed foundation for other rights. Your property, houses, papers, and effects are a bubble around your person. If they can be violated then your person is also violated. R2.0 is 100% correct, it does refer to writings in your possesion whether you are the author or not; That includes but is not limited to poetry, short stories, computer programs, blueprints, books, grocery lists, memos, newspapers, diaries, letters, maps, and pictures.
When the legislation for the Real ID Act was crafted back in 2005, it was the same language that was passed by the House in 2004 concerning intel reform. It was known as the 9/11 Implementation Act of 2004 (HR10). One of the clauses required states to sign the Driver License Agreement (DLA) which states had to share their driver license databases not only between the states but also jurisdictions in Canada and Mexico. The Real ID Act language was crafted by bureaucrats within the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA). When the Intel Reform legislation went to conference committee in the Fall of 2004, the biggest pissing match concerned the Real ID Act language.
Representative Sensenbrenner fought hard to retain this but lost the battle. He allowed the Intel legislation to go forward based upon a promise of a vote on his bill in 2005 which he got. It passed the house without discussion and without debate. It got over to the Senate and it sat. It got railroaded through on the Iraq War funding and tsunami bill which was a must pass bill. Sensenbrenner mentioned that even though no one wanted this, it was going to be a rider on a must pass bill and it will "ride as a passenger" on the train out of the house and be passed. He got his way !
The best thing is to toss this bad piece of law into the trash.
Now concerning the DLA, it is another badly written piece of law. Only a couple of states has signed this - CT, AR that I know of. This DLA should suffer a death as well especially with the database sharing requirement. States that are signatory to the DLA must share their DL data with all jurisdictions, not just only other DLA jurisdictions but also non-DLA jurisdictions as well. Corrupt officials in Mexico would have a field day especially if they deal with a person on vacation who happens to be licensed in a DLA state. Identity theft would be a big thing !
Both the Real ID Act and the DLA deserve a quick death. Rebellion by the states will help this greatly.
It's not the same as in Texas. In British Columbia, you pay for vehicle registration and liability insurance at the same time, to the same entity (the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, a quasi-government company similar in status to the post office). ICBC also runs the driver licensing offices. If you want your registration to last for a year, then you pay for a year of insurance up front. The system is set up so that there is no enforcement problem. The downside is that ICBC has a monopoly on third-party liability insurance for automobiles.
It is official; ACLU now confirms: RealID is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered RealID community when DOJ confirmed that RealID market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all state government ID programs. Coming close on the heels of a recent Homeland Security survey which plainly states that RealID has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. RealID is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Immigration and Customs comprehensive identification test.
You don't need to be a Brownie to predict RealID's future. The hand writing is on the wall: RealID faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for RealID because RealID is dying. Things are looking very bad for RealID. As many of us are already aware, RealID continues to lose market share. Fake passports and imitations flow like a river of blood.
The Department of Justice is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its DC managing political stooges. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time DOJ water-carriers Monica Goodling and Alberto Gonzales only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: RealID is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
RealID leader Mike Chertoff states that there are 100 states which plan to use RealID. How many users of RealID are there? Let's see. The number of RealID versus other ID posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 100/5 = 20 RealID users. RealID posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of other ID posts. Therefore there are about 10 users of RealID. A recent article put RealID at about 80 percent of the overall ID market. Therefore there is only one actual RealID user. This is consistent with the number of RealID Usenet posts.
All major surveys show that RealID proponents have steadily declined in market share. RealID is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If RealID is to survive at all it will be among National Security Theatre dilettante dabblers. RealID continues to decay. Nothing short of a cockeyed miracle could save RealID from its fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, RealID is dead.
Fact: RealID is dying
Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
DLA is a good idea, as long as the data stays in the country. I don't trust Mexico with my info either.
The portions of RealID relating to positive identification before the issuance of a license or ID card need to stay, too. It's just way too easy to get them now with falsified information.
Basically, I'd like to have enough to prevent fraud. But of course, the statists wrote the bill and wanted a lot more than just that.
As the parent says, Real ID failed because it screwed the states by providing no way to pay for the massive changes required to issue everyone a new driver's license. The states won.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
Because the driver's license has been a de-facto state ID since forever, and changing that would upset a lot of social convenience.
Translation:
The system is broken, I don't want to fix it because that would require work.
And they are right. The real evil, which allows us all to be tracked from young age to the death is the "Social Security" number.
But that's much harder to get rid of as long as Income Tax is considered acceptable, because the need to track everybody's income must be considered acceptable along with it... And to track you, some sort of a nationwide-unique number is needed.
Don't expect ACLU to lift a finger over this though — "Social Security" itself is the major feather in the Illiberals' hat, and anybody trying to lower taxes must be doing it only "for the rich" and with sole purpose of destroying this or that pet-program.
Civil Liberties are meaningless without financial liberty, but, unfortunately, today's ACLU does not realize that...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Illegal aliens getting legal drivers' licenses and NY state tax payers becoming unwilling participants in the RealID program...
What a shame...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/29/nyregion/29real.html
agreed. i don't get it. they let you drive, smoke, vote, and go die for your country, but you can't have a beer for another 3(?) years?
drinking age here is 19, which makes more sense to me.
For those reasons in the first sentence I believe 18 should be the age a person can buy alcohol. However I also believe a parents should be able to buy and serve it to their children. Unfortunately in the US a parent doing so might be arrested and have their children taken away for child endangerment, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, or some such.
FalconShould there be a Law?
When I was in college I never had the "I want to drink because I'm not supposed to" attitude. I had the "I want to drink so I'm going to" attitude.
When I was in the US Army I would buy a drink and still be drinking it a couple of hours later. A mixed drink with rum, tequila, or something else would last me that long and a bottle or can of beer could last me a few hours. I attribute this to my mother raising me to drink responsibly, growing up she would give me some wine, beer, or something else to sip while eating and such but she'd never give me too much.
FslconShould there be a Law?
Just cause it is ailing, doesn't mean that the President won't sing off on it or that it will silently pass in shadow government.
The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
What it'll become is a federal requirement for the next incarnation of state DLs having to match a federal data standard.
How is it a good this for those who love freedom? It's only good for those who want to control the population.
What the really big up roar with the current RealID is that many states have gone their own way with having bar codes or digital information on their DLs, but only that state's systems can read the info off the card, and no one is willing to spend additional money just to conform to a federal standard.
Point to one place in the Constitution of the USA where it gives the federal governemnt this sort of power? Hint, it doesn't therefore the federal government has no such authority, and the 10th Amendment reserves all powers not specifically granted to the federal government to the state or th4e people.
Let's be honest there is no additional privacy problems with RealID. If you are in a position to be stopped and asked for State or Federal ID by a state or federal government official for government services,
Travel IS NOT a governmental, at least not federal government, service. Most air travel is between individuals or entities and other entities. And many of those entities are businesses.
If the government is hunting for you, they know your name and last known address. RealID was supposed to make it trivial to swipe a DL through a reader so all that DL info could be auto populated rather than manually entered. This is supposed to be a the huge privacy concern needing ACLU attention?
Yes it is, other than a dictatorship or authoritarian regime why does the government need to track law abiding people?
FaclonShould there be a Law?
Usually, you are required to show your DL at the same time.
Besides DLs states also issue IDs. The DLs authorize people to drive but if a person has one they don't need an ID. IDs are for those who need ID but don't drive. For a check or credit card it's an ID that is required not a driver's license. However that's not a government mandate, it's a financial mandate, the issuing entity of the cc or check wants the person to show they are who they say they are. No government involved, unless there's fraud or some such.
We already have RealID in practice.
No we don't. As it should be there is no nationwide database of all citizens controlled by the government!
FalconShould there be a Law?
Credit Cards? Are you kidding? Unless I'm making a big ticket purchase, I am never asked to show an ID when using my credit card. My girlfriend even has "Ask For ID" written in the signature panel, and its rare that someone even checks.
Same here, I have "check id" on mine, however even when someone asks to see the cc, which isn't often, they quickly look at the back. What for I don't know, if they actually read it they'd do more than just hand it back. However at least VISA says someone can't be IDed, all someone accepting a VISA cc can do is compare the signature on the receipt with the one on the card. One VISA issuer says this"
Technically, merchants are not authorized to accept credit or debit cards that are not signed by the cardholder or have used the signature panel on the back of the card for something other than a signature such as "Ask for ID".
...
FalconBy signing the card, you provide a means for the merchant to verify your identity. Merchants must compare the signature on the back of the card with the signature on the receipt before completing the transaction.
Should there be a Law?
Habeus doesn't apply to Gitmo. Period.
Jose Padilla wasn't captured in Afghanistan, but he was arrested in Chicago, IL. Nor was he sent to Gitmo, but he was held incommunicado in the USA. As were others. Oh, I see you mention him. There's also Hamdi who though captured in Afghanistan is a US citizen. And the USSC ruled he could not be deprived of Habeas Corpus.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The only policy position that he radically deviates from the libertarian norm on is on immigration and naturalization, and I find that departure unfortunate.
Immigration and naturalization is the one area I disagree with him too. He still comes the closest to my positions on the issues that matter to me. If given the chance next year I'll vote for Ron Paul again, I first voted for him for President in 1988.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The religious definition of marriage originally meant a man and his "unions" with one or more women. By your logic our laws should allow a man to marry as many women as he wants, but not for a woman to marry as many men as she wants. How enlightened.
It depends on what religion you're talking about. Some religions allowed homosexual unions and some allowed Polygamy, which despite what the mass media says allows both male and females to have more than one spouse when they say "polygamy". What those who say more than one wife for the husband, like some Mormons, mean the correct word is Polygyny. Others allowed Polyandry or a female having more than one husband. Myself I prefer Polyamory, more than one love.
FalconShould there be a Law?
it's a whole lot easier to throw someone out of the country if they can't prove citizenship
I am a citizen in the US why should I have to prove I am? If anyone should prove anything the government should have to prove I am not a citizen, or legal resident. It's called innocence 'til proven guilty. And if you want to talk about legel immigration, I have one question or you. What Native American Indian Tribe are you a member of? If you aren't an NDN you are here illegally seeing as how no tribes issued any papers.
FalconShould there be a Law?
after entering the country illegally, driving without insurance is small potatoes.
Most in the US illegally are illegal not because they are criminals but because they can't get green cards to be here legally. If so called illegal immigrants were given a chance to stay here legally they'd jump at it. Most of them don't want to be illegal but they will do what they need to survive. Oh, and if you're not a member of a Native American Indian tribe yet you're in the US then you're illegal too seeing as how no Native American Indian tribes issued documents for immigrants. Instead they were massacred by European settlers who colonized the Americas.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Are you ignoring the 10 million or so mexicans that never had a visa of any kind?
You mean the Mayans whose ancestors were here before Europeans came and started massacring those already here?
FalconShould there be a Law?
We own this country now and we decide who's allowed in.
That's right the conquerors makes the rules. Might equals right. NOT!!!
FalconShould there be a Law?
That's why so many things we tend to take for granted exist, such as safety glass in automobiles.
Safety glass for windshields have been required by federal law since 1966.
No culture or society can survive an overwhelming influx of illiterate, unskilled people for a sustained period. The vast majority of the people coming here illegally from Mexico create a huge expense for the U.S. citizens, financially and also when viewed from public safety and societal cohesion viewpoints.
So did those Irish Catholics. Most if not all of those "illegal immigrants" from Mexico pay taxes. They all may not pay income tax, though about 8 million do, but they either rent or own property and owners of said property have to pay property tax. Then when they go shopping they are paying sales taxes. By allowing the illegals to legally work in the US they will be paying more taxes, as well as helping to keep Social Security running. Those 8 million have paid more than $50 billion into SS. Imagine if they all paid into SS? Require them to pay into it but without them being able to collect any unless they become citizens, then SS will be kept solvent. As for any illegals collecting SS now, that's a problem with the SSA. They need to check and make sure anyone collecting SS is eligible to collect it.
I've seen some interesting ideas to help curb the drug money
Drug money? Drugs should be legalized period. The government should not be telling people what to do with their own bodies. Instead legalize and tax drugs. This alone would cut down dramatically of crime. With only 5% of the world population the US has 25% of the world's prison population. Half of them in prison for nonviolent drug offenses. With drugs legalized and taxed, not only would there be taxes collected from drugs but all, well must anyway, of those people in prison for drug offenses would also be employed and pay income tax. Then with legal drugs street drugs will cost less which will reduce crimes such as muggings, theft, and murder. "Foreign Policy" magazine had a good article in the September/October 2007 issue on ending drug prohibition and looking for it online I found 13 articles on drugs. The one I have goes into how the Taliban in Afghanistan are benefiting, profiting, from illegal opium. Make it legal and you take away their profits from opium. There's more to it however I'll just end it on the note that the government shouldn't be telling people what they can do with their own bodies, the only thing it should be concerned about is if a person is harming or violating the rights of another.
There's also the aspect of non-citizens drawing on the social support system paid for by taxes on citizens.
As stated above that's a problem with the Social Security Administration, SSA, not immigrants receiving SS. The SSA needs to make sure, from the first filling for benefits, the person is eligible to receive SS. For other costs such as medical care, that's not just a problem with illegals. Something like half of US citizens don't have health insurance either. As many say about capitalism driving wages down, I say let freemarket capitalism drive health care cost down as well. First, the AMA has a pretty good lock on healthcare. Open up healthcare. Child birth is a bit expensive, most happen in hospitals. Next a lot of child births are done by C section. Both of which drive up prices. Allow Midwives to deliver babies at home, this one step will reduce costs. Then, of those who have health insurance most get it through their employer. Employers get a tax brea
Should there be a Law?
That was my point. The US was built and is ruled by immigrants who conquered and massacred those already here. They came, now their descendants are complaining about the "Others" coming, even when the new arrivals aren't massacring those already here.
FalconShould there be a Law?
If this had been an essay or paper in school you would of failed because you chose an overdone subject. Please choose another before I cause pain to you with a pair of pear paring knives.
I forgot to mention in the other reply that you also don't seem to understand economics.
Everything you post also reads like regurgitated Undergraduate 101 junk. We will just have to agree to disagree.
Who doesn't understand economics, someone who doesn't know there's a difference between an entity receiving hugh government aid while another receives no aid, or a person who knows there is a big difference? But I agree we'll just have to disagree.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Sure, in fact I bet that most humans could do better. But because war and the like is part of us, we will never escape it.
I think part of the problem is nationalism, however conflicts are mostly about resources. Take Africa, in the Niger Delta the rebels are fighting over money oil brings in. Several different ethnic tribes live there but only a couple see any benefits or money. In the Congo fighting is over timber and minerals such as coltan.
FalconShould there be a Law?
my focus was on the word "illegal". used extensively throughout this discussion and, I thought, well understood as to its meaning and relevance.
Who's being smarmy now? Fact is is these laws making it immigration illegal is nothing more than racistic. European settlers invaded, conquered, and massacred the natives in the Americas and now set the rules. The only place American Indians have a strong say now are in Bolivia and Ecuador, but only because they've were successful in getting their own representatives or supporters elected in national elections. Racism in the USA has been going on almost it was founded. Benjamin Franklin proposed a law barring Germans from immigrating. In the 1850s it was the Know Nothings who wanted to bar some from immigrating. They opposed Irish and Roman Catholics from migrating to the US. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 restricted Chinese immigration. At other tymes Eastern and Southern Europeans were barred from immigration, the Immigration Act of 1924 for instance. Now it's Latin Americans, many of whom their ancesters inhabited the Americas before it was "discovered", who are being discriminated against.
FalconShould there be a Law?