[North-NV-Greens] REAL ID - REAL BAD!

[Bob Tregilus]

  There is still time folks! If you have not already written your 
senators about the REAL ID Act please do so now.

Please write your senators in three clicks - NOW - click here:
http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=17982&c=39

Two articles follow (one from an immigration point of view and the other 
from a privacy point of view) discussing just a few of the reasons REAL 
ID is bad - REAL BAD!

Bob Tregilus
in Reno

---


This is a printer friendly version of an article from 
www.nashuatelegraph.com
To print this article if a print dialogue does not open automatically, 
open the File menu and choose Print.


Back Article published Apr 15, 2005
U.S. Senate should vote against ‘Real ID’ because it’s a bad proposal

“Real ID,” H.R. 418, is currently on the Senate floor and may soon be 
voted on. At that time, Sens. Judd Gregg and John Sununu have an 
obligation to their constituency to vote “no” on the bill that is 
anti-immigration and anti-judicial review.

It infringes on the already limited rights of the immigrant community 
and prevents judicial review.

A favorable vote on this bill will counteract measures already in place 
through the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. It also 
masks the need for comprehensive immigration reform to address the 
requirements of national security, U.S. businesses and families.

As a member of the Appropriations Committee, Sen. Gregg, in particular, 
has the opportunity and responsibility to vote “no” and help defeat the 
so-called “Real ID” bill.

The only thing “real” about this bill is that it would prevent people 
fleeing persecution from obtaining asylum, grant unprecedented powers to 
a federal agency, begin the process of a federal identification card, 
impose guilt by association, deprive people of their day in court and 
undermine our security.

Given this list of offenses to liberty, only procedural tricks explain 
how the House passed this measure so quickly and why the Senate is 
poised to pass it.

The “trick” here was attaching it to a “must-pass” bill - the 
supplemental appropriations bill that sends money to troops in Iraq and 
provides financial relief for tsunami victims.

By use of this tactic, proponents are hoping to avoid scrutiny and gain 
politically by mischaracterizing it as a measure that will enhance our 
security or control immigration. It does neither; it simply diverts 
attention from what must be done.

Congress needs to do the right thing, and reject this measure that would:

- Prevent people fleeing persecution from obtaining relief.

People who are seeking asylum are fleeing persecution and terror. They 
are already subject to more extensive security checks than any other 
foreign nationals entering this country. Terrorists and others who pose 
a danger to our security are already ineligible for asylum.

Congressional supporters of this bill are unable to cite a single 
example of a terrorist misusing the asylum system. Passage of this bill 
gives a legal basis to deny all asylum claims, including Christians 
fleeing the Muslim government of Sudan or the communists of China, 
political opponents of the governments of North Korea or Iran.

- Deny a day in court when the government makes a mistake

“Real ID” is a full-scale assault on judicial review. For the first time 
since the Civil War, the great writ of habeas corpus would be suspended. 
It will close the courthouse door to federal reviews challenging the 
legality of a host of detention and deportation decisions.

Importantly, this bill will effectively eliminate the power of a federal 
court to halt a person’s deportation even while that court is reviewing 
a challenge to the deportation. Even the government sometimes makes a 
mistake.

Habeas corpus is often the only way to get into federal court and to 
have a federal judge review the government’s behavior. “Real ID” will 
take away the review of government mistakes in life and death situations.

- Undermine our security.

The intelligence reform bill that Congress passed last year addressed 
the concerns raised by the 9/11 Commission regarding driver’s licenses 
and identity documents.

By setting federal eligibility requirements for driver’s licenses, “Real 
ID” will undermine national security by pushing immigrants deeper into 
the shadows and forcing many to drive without licenses.

Thus, this bill limits, rather than expands, government data about 
individuals in this country. It is also the first step to a national 
identification card for everyone.

Your license may say “State of New Hampshire,” but make no mistake, the 
federal government would be the issuing agency.

Congress got it right when it debated and passed the Intelligence Reform 
and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 without these ill-conceived provisions.

We urge both Sens. Gregg and Sununu to reject “Real ID,” and instead, 
work on a comprehensive reformation of our immigration system.

To remain a great nation, the United States requires immigration that is 
legal, safe, orderly and responsive to the requirements of national 
security, businesses and families.
© 2003, Telegraph Publishing Company, Nashua, New Hampshire

----

HON. RON PAUL (R-TX)
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 9, 2005

HR 418- A National ID Bill Masquerading as Immigration Reform

Mr. Speaker:

I rise in strong opposition to HR 418, the REAL ID Act. This bill 
purports to make us safer from terrorists who may sneak into the United 
States, and from other illegal immigrants. While I agree that these 
issues are of vital importance, this bill will do very little to make us 
more secure. It will not address our real vulnerabilities. It will, 
however, make us much less free. In reality, this bill is a Trojan 
horse. It pretends to offer desperately needed border control in order 
to stampede Americans into sacrificing what is uniquely American: our 
constitutionally protected liberty.

What is wrong with this bill?

The REAL ID Act establishes a national ID card by mandating that states 
include certain minimum identification standards on driver’s licenses. 
It contains no limits on the government’s power to impose additional 
standards. Indeed, it gives authority to the Secretary of Homeland 
Security to unilaterally add requirements as he sees fit.

Supporters claim it is not a national ID because it is voluntary. 
However, any state that opts out will automatically make non-persons out 
of its citizens. The citizens of that state will be unable to have any 
dealings with the federal government because their ID will not be 
accepted. They will not be able to fly or to take a train. In essence, 
in the eyes of the federal government they will cease to exist. It is 
absurd to call this voluntary.

Republican Party talking points on this bill, which claim that this is 
not a national ID card, nevertheless endorse the idea that “the federal 
government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates 
and sources of identification such as driver’s licenses.” So they admit 
that they want a national ID but at the same time pretend that this is 
not a national ID.

This bill establishes a massive, centrally-coordinated database of 
highly personal information about American citizens: at a minimum their 
name, date of birth, place of residence, Social Security number, and 
physical and possibly other characteristics. What is even more 
disturbing is that, by mandating that states participate in the “Drivers 
License Agreement,” this bill creates a massive database of sensitive 
information on American citizens that will be shared with Canada and Mexico!

This bill could have a chilling effect on the exercise of our 
constitutionally guaranteed rights. It re-defines "terrorism" in broad 
new terms that could well include members of firearms rights and 
anti-abortion groups, or other such groups as determined by whoever is 
in power at the time. There are no prohibitions against including such 
information in the database as information about a person’s exercise of 
First Amendment rights or about a person’s appearance on a registry of 
firearms owners.

This legislation gives authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security 
to expand required information on driver’s licenses, potentially 
including such biometric information as retina scans, finger prints, DNA 
information, and even Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) radio 
tracking technology. Including such technology as RFID would mean that 
the federal government, as well as the governments of Canada and Mexico, 
would know where Americans are at all time of the day and night.

There are no limits on what happens to the database of sensitive 
information on Americans once it leaves the United States for Canada and 
Mexico - or perhaps other countries. Who is to stop a corrupt foreign 
government official from selling or giving this information to human 
traffickers or even terrorists? Will this uncertainty make us feel safer?

What will all of this mean for us? When this new program is implemented, 
every time we are required to show our driver’s license we will, in 
fact, be showing a national identification card. We will be handing over 
a card that includes our personal and likely biometric information, 
information which is connected to a national and international database.

H.R. 418 does nothing to solve the growing threat to national security 
posed by people who are already in the U.S. illegally. Instead, H.R. 418 
states what we already know: that certain people here illegally are 
"deportable." But it does nothing to mandate deportation.

Although Congress funded an additional 2,000 border guards last year, 
the administration has announced that it will only ask for an additional 
210 guards. Why are we not pursuing these avenues as a way of 
safeguarding our country? Why are we punishing Americans by taking away 
their freedoms instead of making life more difficult for those who would 
enter our country illegally?

H.R. 418 does what legislation restricting firearm ownership does. It 
punishes law-abiding citizens. Criminals will ignore it. H.R. 418 offers 
us a false sense of greater security at the cost of taking a gigantic 
step toward making America a police state.

I urge my colleagues to vote “NO” on the REAL ID Act of 2005.