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.'"
Totally bad. There is no problem to which Real ID is a solution. We already have state IDs. And federal Social Security numbers. And passports. I can't see any benefit to Real ID.
The feds got slapped on this one and it is making me laugh so hard. It would make me even happier if thy get their ass kicked.
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.
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.
Good - We shouldn't be using SSNs for identification (not even what they are intended for).
That being said, it probably is overkill. It would be better to have a method of central access to state id information as that the Real ID would provide. Phase in standardizations of State IDs, and viola, same effect, but probably cheaper and would make people happier.
Hasn't much of this been done already anyway?
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
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
And this affects you how, exactly?
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
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.
Well, I can't speak for the GP, but assuming you reside in the United States, have you ever been in an auto accident with an individual who is not a legal resident?
Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
So rather than stop giving IDs to people here illegally we should add another level of bureaucracy?
It strikes me that it would be easier, cheaper, and fairer to simply stop giving IDs to people here illegally. I mean they are here illegally.
I find being offended by me offensive.
One purported benefit of Real ID was uniform standards for state identification. Constitutionally states are obligated to recognize others' state IDs, so it would be nice to have a standard in place so that if my state's ID is good, people don't just go next door where the license is printed on card stock or something. I read part of Real ID was a minimum standard for preventing forgery, and I don't think this is a bad idea.
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.
Why wouldn't you want the 'illegals' to be licensed and insured if they are going to drive anyway?
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
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
Coincidentally, about a month ago my cousin was hit by an uninsured illegal while driving. Due to quick thinking she avoided a direct hit that would have killed her.
However, I have no idea how that should influence my decision. I would prefer:
a) Illegals not drive.
If that's not viable, I'd prefer
b) illegals be insured
although considering how much they charge teenage drivers, I can't imagine how anyone could afford an actuarially accurate number. That would still be better than the current situation of:
c) illegals do drive, without insurance.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
California isn't one of those 19 states so you're looking in the wrong place.
Better still, when the illegals show up to claim their latest 'benefit' of being in this country (their shiny new driver's license) grab 'em and ship 'em home. For Pete's sake, why call them illegals if we're not going to treat them as such?
I don't think we'll ever get the US populace off that crack, but we could at least be honest, labeling the tax "a tax", and stop the crappy accounting sophistries.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Constitutionally states are obligated to recognize others' state IDs
Really? I must have missed that part of the Constitution. Can you point out where it says that? Or where it mentions IDs at all for that matter?
Because the driver's license has been a de-facto state ID since forever, and changing that would upset a lot of social convenience. It seems like a lot of anguish so that some politicians can passive-aggressively avoid dealing with the immigration debate. The logical and correct solution is to stop avoiding the immigration debate. It's stupid on its face to everyone who doesn't have an agenda to give state IDs to people who are not here legally.
In British Columbia, the government runs the auto insurance. You can't register a vehicle (i.e. get a license plate) without insurance. Driving without insurance is illegal. Thus, almost everybody has insurance. This also makes "underinsured motorist" coverage dirt cheap, around $25/year, which gives you full coverage whether or not "the other guy" has any insurance or not.
I'm not saying our system is perfect, but it certainly would eliminate the problem you have described.
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
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!!
Not IDs per se, but how about the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution?
Hell, I hate REAL ID as much as anyone, but rereading Article IV, Section 1, I'm beginning to wonder if this piece of shit actually is Constitutional (I hope not).
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Yes, it would be nice if illegals didn't drive without insurance. However, most of them have no assets in the US so you can't exactly sue them.
They could be insured, if you were paying their insurance. Since they have no assets, they don't care. You can't exactly sue them. So they aren't going to pay for insurance, no matter what the cost. It could be a state-provided benefit for illegals though.
I'm sure that, on paper, that's exactly how it works here (Texas). It's just a matter of apathetic enforcement of the law. If you really wanted to be sure that no one can get on the road uninsured unless they steal a car, then police would have to show up the moment I pass the renewal deadline for my insurance policy without replacing it or transferring ownership of the car. Needless to say, this doesn't happen. I've seen ads where the police offer temporary "warrant amnesty", giving you a chance to turn yourself in for outstanding warrants. Now, if they have that big a problem following up on warrants (where there's actually a judcial order for arrest), what are the odds they're so vigilant about uninsured drivers?
And then of course, both B/C and Texas do nothing about the possibility that someone will buy a car (and they check you for insurance on the secondary market, right?) and then share it with illegals.
It's all nice and feel-good that uninsured driving is illegal, but all that means is more hassle for people who obey the law. Criminals and illegals can effectively evade it until an accident.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
State IDs are on the verge of being irrelelvant because the states are starting to issue them to non-citizens. There must be a way to discriminate between citizen and non-citizen for many essential foundations of any sovereign society such as voting. There are only two reasons I can imagine why the Democrats want to simultaneously prohibit Federal ID while destroying State ID integrity:
1) Dissolve US sovereignty
2) Weaken State sovereignty and strengthen Federal sovereignty
3) Contrariansm for the sake of contrarianism
4) Exacerbating the problem so they can "solve" it if they gain control of the Federal government
Europeans have a national ID card and a driver's license. They are 2 separate and distinct documents. That seems to be where the U.S. is heading. IMNSHO, that will be a huge waste of money and resources. If State IDs (driver's licenses) are limited to proven citizens then the data can be cross-referenced electronically. This is an important aspect of "open borders" between the States and free flow of trade across State borders.
The Patriot Act gets a lot of negative comments here on Slashdot but some aspects of it are really, really good. For example, it's a lot easier for the Police to quickly determine if a person has an outstanding warrant in another state. I've personally seen how it allows the Police and credit card companies track use of stolen cards in real time and catch the thieves in the process of using the stolen cards within 30 minutes of the theft. That kind of integrated data couldn't happen without some form of co-operation.
Why they don't link the Social Security numbers to these ID searches is beyond me. If a Policeman pulls a car over for speeding in, say, Massachusetts and the driver has a driver's license issued in Maryland but to a stolen Social Security number (I can't remember if Maryland uses Social Security number for the driver's license number, some states do that.), shouldn't the Policeman be informed of that? An ID is only as good as the data on it. For ID to have any value, it must be verifiable and trustworthy.
We're already there, decision made. Illinois and other states have decided to give ID to illegals. So they can have a license. Has nothing to do with insurance. But because these people have no documentation, you can't have the regular rules for getting a driver's license or state ID - they couldn't provide the documentation.
So they just give them the ID with no documentation. It is just another benefit of coming to the US.
I don't care if they drive without a license, if the license doesn't prove anything. I'd rather they go home so we can export the jobs that are exportable to them in their country rather than taking over the non-exportable jobs here at lower wages.
Doh... I forgot about that part. Thanks for correcting me.
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
In my state it's illegal to register or drive a car without insurance, but people still do it, for example illegal aliens. I suppose they don't register their vehicles for the same reason they don't get licenses. I don't think being illegally without insurance is a deterrence for people that are here illegally already and are driving without a license. Unless I am missing something here.
The taxpayers got slapped would be more accurate.
How much did this never-to-be-implemented boondoggle
cost the American people, I wonder?
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -- George Orwell
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.
If it were used for it's intended purpose, it wouldn't be so bad (IMO).
Also, I'm used to hearing it referred to as Social Security Tax, so I'm not sure how they aren't labelling it a tax.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
1) Dissolve US sovereignty
2) Weaken State sovereignty and strengthen Federal sovereignty
3) Contrariansm for the sake of contrarianism
4) Exacerbating the problem so they can "solve" it if they gain control of the Federal government
5) Illegals tend to vote democratic.
The Patriot Act gets a lot of negative comments here on Slashdot but some aspects of it are really, really good. For example, it's a lot easier for the Police to quickly determine if a person has an outstanding warrant in another state. I've personally seen how it allows the Police and credit card companies track use of stolen cards in real time and catch the thieves in the process of using the stolen cards within 30 minutes of the theft. That kind of integrated data couldn't happen without some form of co-operation.The problem is the patriot act is very large. Its like saying you agree wholeheartedly with the constitution. I'm a big fan of it, but I would like a line item veto amendment and a repeal of the income tax amendment. Some of it is good. Some of it is bad.
--- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
Douglas Adams' views on the subject are instructive:
why would they get a license and insurance just because they were able to? They're breaking the law just by being there, why not flout the traffic regs, too?
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
It's got a more bureaucratically pleasant name on the paystub.
The chief complaints I have about it are a) the federal-level intrusion into individual income (somewhat understandable, given the period in which the idea was born), and b) the binding of the individual to the government. Dependencies suck, in policy as well as code.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
The key word is ILLEGAL. If I were to walk into the DMV carrying a huge baggie of crack, which is illegal, I'd most likely be leaving in handcuffs. So why can an illegal walk into the DMV with documents basically proving he's a non-citizen and expect to be treated any differently?
Is this a news report or a trailer for a motion picture?
If you insure a car and then let illegals use it, then you'd be liable for any damage. Sounds like a stupid thing to do, really.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
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.
The feds don't have the right to regulate how states issue ID - this is a federal power grab, again.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
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.
A report commissioned the National Governor's Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators puts the cost to the states at around $11 billion. The DHS puts the total cost at $23 billion over the next 10 years, of which $14 billion will be picked up by the states.
"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.
How many people go on a crime spree after running a red light, or smoking a joint, or double-parking? Only psychos set themselves off like that...
Anyway, I don't belive most people will break the law if they can help it.
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
I don't care to argue semantics anymore. It's better to not ascribe to a title for yourself. Anyway, whether one is called a hacker or a cracker doesn't have anything to do with human rights or 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. Furthermore, sheep nor the sky nor differential equations are citizens of any government.
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.
A driver's license does not fall under any of those categories.
States honor each other's licenses through one of several agreements among the states, known as compacts.
States are required to honor court act and judicial proceedings like divorce, marriage, child custody, name change, etc. So yes, DOMA may be unconstitutional.
States can optionally honor other states licenses ie medical, legal, firearm, etc. If you don't believe me, get a business license in Nevada and claim that California has to honor that license. Ditto for carrying a concealed weapon or opening your own law practice...
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.
*sigh* Our tax dollars at work, going to provide lots of free shit for criminals.
kurzweil_freak
5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student
Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.
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.
Wow. I can't imagine that. I've voted in Illinois, South Dakota and North Carolina. Each time I had to present the voter registration card for which I had to show Social Security card, Driver's License and/or Birth Certificate.
I guess this just reinforces the need for a universal ID of some sort to prove citizenship.
IIRC, one of the Great Lakes states was going to require photo ID for voting then there were complaints that would discriminate against poor people so they state offered to give the IDs for free. My guess is the move to some form of US National ID is inevitable. If you think about it from a legal/law 3enforcement perspective, it's a whole lot easier to throw someone out of the country if they can't prove citizenship than to mess with any number of violations they commit while here. You know what I mean, the illegal alien who runs over someone while driving without a driver's license or is caught shoplifting or something like that. The total cost to society would be less.
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?"
Yes, I have. In fact, I had to chase them down when they got out of their stolen car and started running after they turned the wrong way on to a one way street and hit me.
after entering the country illegally, driving without insurance is small potatoes.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
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.
"Innocent until proven guilty" makes our country great, first of all. It would be much better if the feds mandated some sort of "this is your proof you are a citizen so you can vote" than "everyone needs a fed ID so we can track your every move."
"Tracking your every move" is science fiction movies. It can't work in reality. 300+ million people making how many transactions per day? (Transasction meaning passing through a doorway, traffic light, using a PC, flipping on a light switch, etc.) The FUD about NSA phone filtering by computer misses the point. The computers are used to whittle down the extranneous stuff to a "manageable" percent of things which might need to be examined. Even so, exponential growth of transactions by billions of people far outstrip the ability to monitor everything. All it takes is a little experience with transaction modeling to see how complex this stuff gets and how large the datasets get.
A subset of transactions can be tracked, sort of. Every time you use a credit card a transaction is tracked, analyzed and profiled. The alternative is a cash-only society which would necessitate a fully armed populace and slow commerce to a crawl. That's a totally different, though related, issue and it's FUD when the topic is secure ID.
I understand the caution, though. I certainly wouldn't want everything about me in a centralized location "helpfully administered" by the Federal government. The potential for manipulative population control would be too great.
ID needs to be secure, somehow, or it's nothing more than a fancy "My name is" sticker. I'm guessing the Constitutionality of driver's licenses for non-citizens hasn't really been tested un the reciprocity principle yet. Suppose State A does not allow it and State B does, whose law has precedence? State A could claim State B's drivers are an unreasonable risk and threat to State A citizens. Not such an easy issue.
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.
Of course none of that changes the necessity of owning and driving a car in California. So illegal immigrants never get any official driver training. But they'll still buy a car and they get stolen or forged plates and forged registrations stickers.
Now imagine that you're an illegal immigrant who is an untrained and unlicensed driver, driving your uninsured vehicle with forged plates and you get into an a accident and someone in the other vehicle is injured. Your choices that this point are:
- Stay around and provide assistance until the police arrive, at which point you will be jailed and, either before or after your sentence is complete, deported.
- Run like the wind, leaving the injured party to pay the bills or lose everything, depending upon the severity of the injury and the quality of their insurance.
You probably won't be surprised to hear that the vast majority choose the latter option. Somehow the people who oppose licensing illegal immigrants feel this is as it should be.However, a little psychology might tell you that given the option of following the laws, most people will. Having a license in incentive NOT to do those things that can cause you to lose your license. Not to mention that I'd rather that everyone on the road at least have some rudimentary training in operating a vehicle and following the rules of the road.
Now we pause for the inevitable "you're talking about rewarding people for breaking the laws" crap.
Support SETI@home
This is typically conservative false rhetoric -- comparing gay marriage to bigamy, bestiality, pedophilia and any number of other acts that are outlawed for good reason. There is no reason to outlaw the *only* other union btw two people.
O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
I don't understand how this answers GP's question. If Paco Akbar is issued a drivers license and gets insurance, how is that a problem? He still doesn't have a social security number, so he's still not a citizen, and if he runs into me, I get my bills taken care of just like if he was anybody else.
What is a driver's license used for that this is going to be a problem with? They're allowed to buy liquor, right?
In Australia (or at least in Victoria) insurance is included in the cost of auto registration. Big decals on the windscreen are colour-coded and have the month/year of expiry on them in big type. The police catch you with your car out of reg, they'll confiscate the license plates off the car directly (they keep tools for it) and politely offer to ring a taxi for you. It makes rego expensive, but you're covered. Because there are fewer deadbeats driving, cost per year is pretty low. I'm happy with the system, myself.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
I can hear it now: "I would LOVE to support your cause, but...but...my cushy job, my beautiful home, my SUV, my entertainment system, my boat, my retirement portfolio, my this, my that..."
Posessed by one's own posessions. Now THAT'S freedom.
Submission as evidence constitutes plaintiff and/or prosecutorial misconduct.
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.
It's trivially easy for a 3rd party, who is legal, to license and insure a vehicle, and allow someone else to drive it.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Not true at all.
Most insurance plans allow for 3rd parties to drive your on occasion.
It would be very difficult to prove that you KNOW someone is illegal. In absence of that proof, insurance companies would have to fulfill their obligation.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
illegals do drive, without insurance
This problem is partially caused by state laws incidentally. It seems that many states require that you have a driving license in that state in order to have a car insurance policy there.
Fortunately, the Ohio legislature never thought that was necessary. I see ads all the time in the local Hispanic newspapers where insurance companies say "we'll insure you on your Mexican state license."
Apparently no other state has figured this out.
And once you're actually in the country, with a residence, it can take a court order to get you OUT.
I'm sure it makes you all warm and fuzzy to picture them as "criminals", but that just makes me think that you haven't ever actually spoken with any of them.
If you answered "deportation", you're right. The first time you get caught, you're just sent back home. No jail time. No trial. That's what we do to actual criminals, btw -- send them to jail.
Illegal immigration is the "real crime" version of jaywalking -- to use your drug analogy, it's a underage kid with a pack of cigarettes. The DMV won't deny you a license because you cheated on your taxes or broke the speed limit last year, so why should they care if the renewal for your temporary visa was delayed?
Attempting to limit temporary migration of workers is foolish; all we accomplish is to create an underclass that has no protection of law, because they're so terrified that they'll be deported that they won't even call 9-1-1 when they witness a cold-blooded murder. But we know that it's foolish--which is why it's such a minor violation.
Because you are supposed to be a citizen in "the land of the free" ? How ironic, built on immigration, now you are doing our best to forget your countrys glorios past and it's ideas.
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?
Plus, even if only one illegal immigrant diver in a hundred buys insurance, that's still infinitly more than the number of insured illegals you'd have now.
Toilet cleaner.
laborer for a construction sub-contractor.
Exactly how many Americans do you know that either really want to work in one of those three jobs, or would be willing to pay $100/day for them?
Unlimited migration (NOT immigration -- these people don't want to be citizens!) is a fundamental part of a free market. If the entire population of Mexico wants to come and do low-level service jobs in the United States, they should just need to tell the Departments of State & Homeland Security and the IRS.
Because most of the "illegal immigrants" came here perfectly legally, and just liked it so much that they stayed.
Are you ignoring the 10 million or so mexicans that never had a visa of any kind?
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Doesn't matter, really. Getting a car and then lending it out to others who can't get their own insurance is pretty reckless and not the sort of thing I'd expect to make any sort of money. Anyway, the way you presented it, it sounded as if you were buying and insuring a car specifically to lend it out.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
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?
If the government becomes corrupt enough, they will start singling out people to track. The government of any people should never have this power. People with the "'Tracking your every move' is science fiction movies" attitude assume that government is never corrupt. Ask anyone. No government is uncorrupted. There are many alternatives besides a cash only economic paradigm.
You've totally missed my point. It's not possible to track every person all the time.
Methinks you really don't understand the scal eof what you're proposing would be possible.
Your premise is also flawed. Would you propose no police because some are corrupt? Would you propose never using electronic communication because you might be watched? That's not rational unless you want to live like a beduin.
Constitutionally states are obligated to recognize others' state IDs,
Gosh of the dozens of tymes I read the USA Constitution, I never ever read in it how states must recognize other states' IDs. I don't even recall seeing anything in it about IDs. Can you please tell me where it at?
FalcopnShould 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?
There are only two reasons I can imagine why the Democrats want to simultaneously prohibit Federal ID while destroying State ID integrity:
I thought the governor of New York Elliot Spitzer, you know the one who wants to give illegals drivers licenses, was a Republican.
As for so called illegal immigrants, I want to get rid of them all. Not by rounding them up and shipping them home but by getting rid of many laws restricting immigration. Throughout the USA's history there have been some who were afraid of the "Other" and wanted to prevent them from immigrating to the US, and what's going on now is more of the same. The first case I've heard of was Benjamin Franklin, which disappoints me. He wanted to stop Germans from immigrating. Others wanted to stop southern Europeans while others wanted eastern Europeans stopped. In the 1850s it was the Know Nothings who wanted to stop immigrants, this tyme Irish catholics. In the 1880 it was the Chinese who would be stopped, with the Chinese Exclusion Act. Now it's Mexicans and other Central Americans, who's ancestors the Mayans and other Native American Indians are native to the Americas, who are being excluded.
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?
Better still, when the illegals show up to claim their latest 'benefit' of being in this country (their shiny new driver's license) grab 'em and ship 'em home. For Pete's sake, why call them illegals if we're not going to treat them as such?
Let's start with you. What Native American Indian tribe are you a member of? Prove it. If not, you're an illegal immigrant so let's ship you back to Europe or wherever your ancestors came from.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I don't care if they drive without a license, if the license doesn't prove anything. I'd rather they go home so we can export the jobs that are exportable to them in their country rather than taking over the non-exportable jobs here at lower wages.
And what of the businesses immigrants start? Close them and put the legal workers out of a job? You do realize more immigrants start businesses in the US than native US citizens don't you?
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?
In British Columbia, the government runs the auto insurance. You can't register a vehicle (i.e. get a license plate) without insurance. Driving without insurance is illegal. Thus, almost everybody has insurance. This also makes "underinsured motorist" coverage dirt cheap, around $25/year, which gives you full coverage whether or not "the other guy" has any insurance or not.
Every state in the US I've lived does the same thing, they require auto insurance for a license plate, and the insurance companies have to report if a policy is canceled or lapses. If this happens the license plate is revoked. And our under and uninsured coverage is more expensive than that, at least I've never seen it that low.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I like doing things that are illegal, thus no insurance (oh, and you can renew your license plate without valid insurance, you just need an old insurance number with your name.)
You can't handle the truth.
We aren't talking about driving, we are talking about recognizing a state-issued ID from another state. It's unrelated that the driver's license is used for that purpose.
I'm not sure if this is a federal statute or just Arizona state law but Illegal immigrants in the county containing Phoenix have been given 6 month jail sentences for being in the US illegally in recent months. None have completed their sentences yet however, I must guess that they'll be deported after the completion of their sentences.
Spitzer is a Republican, that's true. The vast majority of the states which are issuing driver's licenses to non-citizens are Democrats. A NY Republican is pretty close to being a Democrat the same way a lot of deep South Democrats are close to being Republican. Party affiliation doesn't mean the person is fully beholden to the party's ideology.
The tripe that strong immigration laws are specifically against Mexicans has really played itself out. I've not made any comment about race and won't accept your attempt to assign such a premise to me. There is some historical truth to that. For example, marijuana criminalization started in the Southwest, apparently as a way to limit immigration. This is the year 2007. It's a very different society than even 1967. The issue isn't skin type, it's far more one of sustaining the societal values. By that, I mean the core values which form the basis of the society. For example, the U.S. has very strong laws about a manufacturer's responsibilities for a product or service after the sale. This manifests itself into being more responsible in design, manufacture and performance than in societies which have far more of a buyer beware culture. That's why so many things we tend to take for granted exist, such as safety glass in automobiles.
Immigration laws and enforcement need to be fixed, that is very true. The limit on extended work visas for skilled people are all assigned within one day because the demand is so high. The issue is not immigration, it is illegal aliens. 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.
I've seen some interesting ideas to help curb the drug money and money transfer aspects. One of them was to have 2 types of U.S. currency. One would be valid only inside the coutry. That would put a crimp on physical shipments of U.S. money to the drug smugglers and also on illegal labor sending money out of the U.S.
There's also the aspect of non-citizens drawing on the social support system paid for by taxes on citizens. That is theft, no matter who does it or where. If I was in Germany and used their tax-supported social support system, that would be my theft.
There's also the aspect of illegal aliens not being protected by society's laws. This makes them easy prey for all kinds of predatory people, be they gangster criminals or employers. Are you familiar with the traditional plight of the sharecropper farmers? They would make an agreement with the landowner to raise the crops then the profit would be split. The law allowed the landowner to throw the sharecropper off the land before the harvest. It encouraged the landowner to steal from the sharecropper. A similar situation applies to illegal aliens.
In August there was a nationally prominent case where a construction company had illegal aliens working as welders on bridges. Those illegal aliens were not certified as being properly skilled to perform the work. Thus, they endangered other people.
The "solution" for Mexico and other Central and Southern American countries is not to export their unskilled people to the U.S. The "solution" is for their systems to grow into the 20th Century and beyond. For the most part, they have feudal governments. It's no surprise that people would want to come to the U.S., the land of opportunity, but that's not a long term solution. Some form of guest worker program where non-citizens could work in the U.S. for a period of time in a legal manner and contributing to the social support systems appropriately would be my personal choice. They wouldn't be allowed to immigrate here unless they returned to their home country and applied through the normal process. This would have the huge benefit for everyone of helping to bring more accountability to their home countries which would eventu
Not true at all.
Most insurance plans allow for 3rd parties to drive your on occasion.
It would be very difficult to prove that you KNOW someone is illegal. In absence of that proof, insurance companies would have to fulfill their obligation. I work for one of (if not the) largest auto insurers in the US, and to us it would not matter if you knew they were illegal or not. If you give someone permission to drive your car, they are covered regardless of age/licensed or not/illegal or not. As far as I know, all major insurance companies have the same policy.
Illegal entry is not as horrible of a crime (at least legally) as you seem to believe. In fact, driving without license probably carries a stiffer penalty.
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
State issued IDs and drivers licenses are not "public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings" of the State.
Perhaps a system could be devised where you go to court and get a plastic card that has a picture of you with a court order stating that you are the person pictured and named in the photo...
My state (NV) doesn't accept IDs from any other state for the purpose of proving your identity in order to get a NV ID/DL. No lawsuits that I'm aware of.
It could be argued that current ID/DL is simply state A vouching for your identity (and driver training for a DL), yet nothing requires state B to accept state A's word. If a state has to accept another state's ID as valid identification, why wouldn't they have to accept another state's concealed weapon permit as proof that you have no felony convictions?
Licenses and permits aren't and never have been covered under the full faith and credit clause.
Hmm, okay, acknowledged. That was pretty much a reactionary post. =)
Well, let's see look at some of the main reasons given to outlaw marriage between gays (that I'm aware of, anyway.) We can go religious, that the judeo-christian-islamic scrolls prohibit it. Hmm, what if you choose not to believe in those ancient texts? And, isn't religious belief personal, and prohibited from mixing with governmental direction?
We can go biologic, that letting these people unite goes against biology. What about all the married straights who aren't reproducing, or even boinking?! Yeah, let's yank their marriage licenses!! They're not fulfilling their biological imperative!
Finally, there's tradition. Marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman. Huh, that's a tough one ... but do traditions ever change? Women in the USA didn't have the vote for, still, the majority of this country's existence. And letting women vote or hold gov't office was definitely not traditional. (Heck, they didn't even wear pants until the last century! Now that they do, nobody's complaining, especially not me!) The five-day, forty-hour work week was unheard of, yet we have that now.
Far as I can tell, there's an emotional reaction to gays being "out", gay lifestyle, gay sex, and gays wanting public recognition of their relationships via state-sanctioned marriage contracts ... it just makes some straight people feel uncomfortable. Understandable. Some of the gay folk I've been acquainted with have said they're uncomfortable thinking about straight sex! Cuts both ways.
Far as I can tell, the arguments against gay marriage don't have much footing, beyond the emotions of people who feel "yecch! i don't want my government sanctioning that!" Okay, sure, everyone's entitled to their feelings and opinions. But, I've been waiting for a *logical*, non-emotional argument against gay marriage - something beyond majority vs. minority. Go ahead, I'll listen...
O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
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?
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?
Cherokee Indian on my mother's side. Provable through well traced genealogy, but I wouldn't waste my time proving it to you as I have no need. On my father's side, German immigrant in the early 1900's - legal, registered etc. as the records I've viewed (again through genealogical research) tell me so. Nothing illegal about it. To reiterate... my focus was on the word "illegal". used extensively throughout this discussion and, I thought, well understood as to its meaning and relevance. Your focus? Apparently only on being smarmy.
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?