May 09, 2005

Real ID Act

Back in February I wrote about the Real ID Act of 2005 passed by the US House of Representatives (with a vote of 261 - 161)

The bill was apparently sent over to the Senate and it looks like it stalled in the Senate Judiciary (?).

Either way, on Thursday, the House passed an important appropriations bill of $82 billion for such things as supporting the troops in Iraq, sunami relief, etc.

Guess what was buried in that bill. You guessed it...the Real ID Act of 2005:

The license provision is part of a massive $82 billion special spending bill, with $75.9 billion going to the armed forces for Iraq, Afghanistan and other overseas missions. It passed the House 368-58.

The House bill also includes more aid for tsunami victims in Asia, $4.2 billion for the State Department and foreign aid, money to hire 500 more Border Patrol agents and an increase in the one-time death benefit for families of troops killed in combat from $12,000 to $100,000.

That increase is retroactive to Oct. 7, 2001, to cover all those killed in the war on terrorism and in Iraq.

Those provisions weren't controversial. But the driver's license requirements and other immigration-related measures drew criticism from immigration advocates and some state officials who said the provisions were included without hearings.

The Senate is expected to vote on the bill this week (Tuesday).

Immigration (and Hispanic) groups are calling this "an attack on immigrants," but it goes way beyond that. This will end up creating a national ID, and no one (reads main stream media) is talking about its implications.

The Ledger out of Lakeland, Florida is asking "Do we need a national ID?" while also pointing out that this bill is passing the burden of creating this national ID on to the states...

Under the shrewdly named "Real ID" initiative, Congress would require states to standardize their driver licenses and create a central database of license holders. No longer solely concerned with driver safety, state DMVs would also be required to adopt stringent verification procedures (authenticating birth certificates and other documents) to make sure that license holders are not in the country illegally. In addition, states would be required to maintain files with copies of all relevant identification documents and digital photos of the license holders.

"Is the goal here to shut down DMVs?" asked Cheye Calvo, director of the National Council of State Legislatures' transportation committee, in The New York Times last week.

His concern is not misplaced. While the provisions of "Real ID" would saddle the states with significant new costs and responsibilities, no federal money accompanies the mandate. By one estimate, the total cost of implementing the rules could be $500 million.

Did they say, "central database?" I think that another reason that this is going to be passed onto the states is that the Federal government can't keep databases of information on citizens. This act allows forces the states to keep the database, and I'm sure that whenever the Federal central government wants any information out of a state's database, they can easily obtain it.

When I pondered the question, "Et tu, GOP?" I was wondering what happened to the party of smaller government. Over the past five years I haven't seen it.

If you are as outraged about the Real ID Act as I am, visit unRealID.com, and contact your Senators ASAP.

Real ID Blogger Roundup:

Emergent Chaos (and recent BlogNashville attendee) weighs in.

Always Right writes:

In the end, though,I think that you have to support this bill. It’s kind of like the Patriot Act, there are some problems with it, but the threat is real and we MUST act now. We can work out the issues later, but we have to get our borders closed, and this is a step in that direction.

We can work out the issues later?

The Open Society Paradox supports the Real ID as well...under the guise of better security, of course. (see Benjamin Franklin for more on that.)

Item One states: "Well, if it makes you feel safe. But if you want my advice, don't bet on it." Agreed.

Freedom is Slavery: "RealID: Real Cowardice"

Everything You Know Is Wrong: "Achtung! Ihre Papiere Gefallen!"

Daily Kos points out Section 102 of the bill:

But -- most overlooked -- is Section 102 of this bill. It would empower the Secretary of Homeland Security to suspend any and all laws in order to ensure the "expeditious" construction of a set of barriers and roads south of San Diego, to keep illegal immigrants out. It also would prohibit ANY judicial review of the Secretary of Homeland Security's decision to suspend any law. ON EDIT: While the law the bill references mentions barriers and roads "near San Diego," it does not appear to be (technically speaking) limited to that area -- but to any barriers or roads "in the vicinity of the United States border."

*Note: For some strange reason, I'm finding myself aligned with the ACLU again (and now Daily Kos) on something, but that doesn't mean that I agree with them on much else. :)

Comments:

Please Note! Failure to abide by the following may result in your comments being edited or deleted: Remain on topic. Foul language and/or personal attacks are not permitted. Excessive links (more than three per thread) must be approved first. If you do include a link in your comment, make sure it is a short link (go to tinyurl.com if it is too long). Try to keep comments to 125 words or less. Thank you.

"For some strange reason, I'm finding myself aligned with the ACLU again (and now Daily Kos) on something"

I understand your initial panic to that realization, but it sounds like you are open to the concept that when it comes to Liberty, we are all Americans, regardless of our chosen "side" in the "culture war." I maintain that a lot of the social (and even some economic) issues that divide the nation will (or should) be quickly de-prioritized when things like RealID (or, IMO, USA PATRIOT) arise. We should all work together to protect our Liberty; and then we'll get back to fighting over the religion-based intolerance/utopian hypertolerance that seem to get us all worked up when there's nothing more important to do. :-)

Posted by: joe at May 9, 2005 01:19 PM

If you live in Tennessee and oppose the Real ID Act, then you need to spend some time at the Public Safety offices. Our processes are a joke and things need to be tightened up. Other states won't take Tennessee licenses as proof of identity because of the laxness of our examiners and rules on acceptable ID.

Since the state doesn't have the huevos to fix the problem the federal gov't will step in. Hurraah!

Posted by: Ron at May 9, 2005 04:24 PM

"Since the state doesn't have the huevos to fix the problem the federal gov't will step in. Hurraah!"

If this is the fix then I would rather live with the problem.

Posted by: gunner at May 9, 2005 08:27 PM

I'm with you about the sheer horror upon realizing I agree with the ACLU and Kos on this one, but I do. It's a bad, bad idea. We're going to look like the USSR! Will we even be able to cross state borders without our "Real ID" anymore? And it opens the door to even more fraud, quite frankly. Please, government, we do NOT need any more of *your* help.

And if TN's 'laxness' is such a problem, why not fix THAT instead of forcing the rest of us into this Big Brother system?

Posted by: Miss O'Hara at May 10, 2005 11:19 AM

Sensenbrenner is actually my Congressman, and I had an opportunity to briefly talk to him about Real ID a couple months ago. Let's just say I was less than impressed.

Posted by: Nick at May 10, 2005 01:32 PM

The anchor tag got stripped off my last comment... you can view my post about Sensenbrenner by clicking on my name under this comment... The tiny url thing didn't seem to work... all anchors are getting stripped.

http://schweitn.blogspot.com/2005/03/wrong-motivations.html

Posted by: Nick at May 10, 2005 01:35 PM

James Thurber has a piece on the inter-war French fascination with the slightly mistranslated American West (``Wild Bird Hickok and His Friends'' in _Let Your Mind Alone! and Other More or Less Inspirational Pieces_). It ends :

``There were, in my lost and lamented collection, a hundred other fine things, which I have forgotten, but there is one that will forever remain with me. It occured in a book in which, as I remember it, Billy the Kid, alias Billy the Boy, was the central figure. At any rate, two strangers had turned up in a small Western town and their actions had aroused the suspicions of a group of respectable citizens, who forthwith called on the sheriff to complain about the newcomers. The sheriff listened gravely for a while, got up and buckled on his gun belt, and said, ``Alors, je vais demander ses cartes d'identite!'' There are few things, in any literature, that have ever given me a greater thrill than coming across that line.''

Posted by: Ron Hardin at May 10, 2005 01:40 PM

I'm normally a keep-your-hands-off libertarian type here, but I don't get all the fuss.

1. Why is requiring people to prove their citizenship status a bad thing? I've had to do this every time I've gotten a new job and filled out an I-4 or whatever it is.

2. Why is requiring a uniform set of minimum criteria for DLs a bad thing? They already serve as federal IDs by proxy.

3. Who's kidding whom about databases? All you need to run a motor vehicle check is a friend in the local PD and there's an FBI office in every state capitol. If they want the data I doubt they have much trouble obtaining it.

4. This is not McCain-Feingold: the ACLU & co's motives in this fight are not the same as ours. It may be politically expedient to team with them but there is no common cause here.

Posted by: the snob at May 10, 2005 02:04 PM

right on, snob. McCain Feingold is still stinking up the punchbowl and this rID is a minor constitutional issue comparatively. You want to sweat a database? You should have seen the ChoicePoint testimony on Capitol Hill. Being in a fairly benign government database about who I *really* am doesn't concern me a whit. I must confess though that I don't ride trains much, so I probably wouldn't get treated to that sinister bureaucrat demanding "my papers". Isn't it really about the fear that presenting ID to vote would then become national SOP? It is here in liberal Lil Rhodey, but apparently not where there are more dead or illegal Democrats like FL.

Posted by: rhodeymark at May 10, 2005 02:26 PM

Currently there are 50 State drivers license databases plus the territories of the United States and all have there databases linked via NLETS so the information is already there. Most states (California and MS that I know for fact) link SSN to the DL number. If someone in Michigan wants to know your SSN/ Address /Drivers History/ Wants-Warrants/Criminal History they already have it.

Mark

Posted by: Mark at May 10, 2005 02:29 PM

The right of privacy has long since evaporated -- so may as well put this one off the argument table. Just google up your own info, and if that's not enough pay someone $20 bucks for the rest.

Just hope you don't get run over and injured by some illegal from Guatemala -- then you will see the immediate need for this bill.

The only thing missing would be for the cops who stop those without valid drivers licenses to deport as necessary.

So I am back to trying to get rid of McCain-Fiengold's mess, that is as un-Constitutional as anything there ever was. Put me down for full disclosure, who cares what someone spends. The sunlight takes the sting out of everything untoward.

Posted by: bill at May 10, 2005 03:45 PM

First the GOP decides they are against small business by passing a bankruptcy bill that caters to the credit card companies and hurts those who want to start their own businesses. If you don't believe me on that one, go talk to the Cato Institute.

Now the GOP is declaring war on another wing of the party - libertarians. If you are pro-freedom and pro-libterty how can you be for this bill?

My theory is that the current leadership really isn't composed of Republicans since most members from the South are former Democrats. The GOP has accepted the superiority of the state over the people.

Posted by: Richard Stefan at May 10, 2005 04:07 PM

It depends on execution. If it provides real bulletproof ID, I'm for it, although I dislike unfunded mandates.

I have no doubt that it's constitutional as a national security measure and also under the commerce clause, although there may be some other argument against it. I'm not a con-law specialist.

You can't have anonymity, as a lot of privacy advocates demand, AND national security, or personal security for that matter. If there is no way to verify your identity, you don't have much of a chance against ID theft until it has already occurred.

We've already been invaded. Now we need a way to identify the invaders and deal with them. Alan Turing started breaking the Enigma code by applying an algorithm that eliminated solutions that couldn't be right.
That's what an ID should do, identify those who are not the enemy.

I don't know how they propose to establish true identities, or how they intend to prevent counterfeiting and keep the databases secure. As I say, it depends on execution.

Posted by: AST at May 11, 2005 05:48 PM