Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

California Edges Toward Joining Real ID Revolt

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the blinking-every-time dept.

Privacy 211

The Department of Homeland Security's Real ID program has a real challenge on its hands from California. DHS had said it will only grant extensions from the Real ID rules taking effect on May 11 to states that apply by March 31 and promise to implement Real ID by 2010. California requested an extension but would not make the latter promise. DHS buckled and said, in effect, "Good enough." Perhaps they realized that trying to slap giant California around is qualitatively different than doing the same to New Hampshire. In another crack in the wall. DHS has granted Montana a waiver it explicitly did not ask for. From Wired: "For a short moment Thursday, millions of Californians were in danger of facing pat-downs at the airport and being blocked from federal buildings come May 11... DHS had said before Thursday it won't grant Real ID extensions to states who don't commit to implementing the rules in the future. That meant Tuesday's letter looked like enough to join California to the small rebellion against the Real ID rules. For Californians that would mean enduring the same fate facing citizens of South Carolina, Maine, Montana, and New Hampshire... [A]fter Threat Level provided Homeland Security spokesman Laura Keehner with the letter, Keehner said California's commitment to thinking about commitment is good enough."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Did the MT extension had anything to with this? (5, Insightful)

snarfies (115214) | more than 6 years ago | (#22843748)

Borodin: Do you think they will let me live in Montana?
Capt. Ramius: I would think they'll let you live wherever you want.
Borodin: Good. Then I will live in Montana. And I will marry a round American woman, and raise rabbits, and she will cook them for me. And I will have a pick-up truck, or umm... possibly even...a recreational vehicle, and drive from state to state. Do they let you do that?
Capt. Ramius: Oh yes.
Borodin: No papers?
Capt. Ramius: No papers. State-to-state.

Re:Did the MT extension had anything to with this? (5, Informative)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 6 years ago | (#22843820)

Not only is that insightful, but brilliantly used. People get all wishy washy when libertarians talk about state's rights. Uhmmmm this is one of those times folks, where state's rights protect your own rights. For some truly interesting reading you might try this link I saw yesterday http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia [wikipedia.org] It's a long read but I think an important one when you consider what the Federal government is trying to foist upon us all. The entire notion of ID kind of falls apart when you actually dig into the constitution and laws which govern this country, your state, and local municipality... at least here in the US.

Damn that commy cut and paste buffer (2, Informative)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 6 years ago | (#22843918)

Here is the link I meant to put in the post above: http://phoenix.craigslist.org/pol/581103415.html [craigslist.org]

Sorry about that... not back to normally scheduled reading.. or not

Re:Damn that commy cut and paste buffer (0)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 6 years ago | (#22844412)

I don't mean to come across as a troll.

That Santa Fe guy talking about rights freedoms and the right drive without license etc is a total kook. So what is going to happen if someone steals his truck? He is going traipse all over New Mexico searching for his truck rustler? Or he is going to demand the same poor sheriff to find the thieves and restore his property, with so clear title he has to him?

Re:Damn that commy cut and paste buffer (2)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 6 years ago | (#22845224)

I don't know what you're getting at, here. Are you saying that since he doesn't want to be hand over his rights to the MVD that he can't seek help from law enforcement when his property is stolen?

I say kudos to the guy for standing up for what he believes in. I wouldn't be brave enough to do it myself (nor the time to deal with all the legal research and filings). I support his efforts.

Re:Damn that commy cut and paste buffer (1, Insightful)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 6 years ago | (#22845472)

I am saying he is very unreasonable. We are not in the horse and buggy days anymore. It is possible to cause far more damage with a car than it is possible with a horse and a buggy. Let him drive without a license if he wants to in his private property. The roads belong to all of us. We need reasonable restrictions so that we can all use it safely and effectively. If the guy can't demonstrate that he can operate a motor vehicle safely, I have the right to stop him from driving on my highway. My right to safe use of my highway can not be compromised by whatever rights he fancies he has. He has to demonstrate that he is capable of handling a vehicle safely, and that he vehicle he is using is safe, with proper brakes and lights and stuff. And we the people own the air collectively. We decide how much pollutants he can emit while operating his vehicle.

Whatever may be the merits of his case or his arguments, he can not unilaterally decide what rights he has. It is the courts of law that decide whether the rights he thinks he has are really his rights or he is blowing smoke. He went before a judge, and the judge ruled that he is a kook. So he remains a kook till an appeals court reverses it. Stop supporting such idiots just because he is sticking to the MVD. You might hate MVD and MVD could be as stupid and inefficient as any govt bureaucracy can be. But the opposition must be reasonable. Supporting all kinds of idiots just because they oppose MDV is stupid.

Re:Damn that commy cut and paste buffer (2)

electrictroy (912290) | more than 6 years ago | (#22845358)

Well of course.

The government exists for the purpose of protecting our rights & returning stolen property, whether it's a car, television, refrigerator, lawnmower, or whatever. Of course it's the job of the sheriff to recover stolen property.

Vice-versa:

The man in New Mexico is 100% correct. The government does Not exist to deny our right to travel. This is why Amish Americans are free to use Pennsylvania roads without license, title, or restriction (though their preferred conveyance is by horse-and-buggy). Likewise we more "modern" americans with our gasoline-fueled vehicles have the same right to travel without restrictions as our Amish-American neighbors.

Re:Damn that commy cut and paste buffer (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 6 years ago | (#22845626)

The roads belong to all of us. A car can cause far more damage in the hand of an incompetent operator than a horse and a buggy. My right to use the highway safely can not be compromised just because you think you have the right to bring anything you want and use it any way you want. It is my right to demand that you demonstrate that you are competent to use a vehicle, and your vehicle poses no hazard to me. That is the legal basis for creating the dept of motor vehicles to determine who is competent and what is safe. If you claim you don't need a license to drive on public roads, persuade a judge to agree with you. If not get a license. That guy went before a judge. And the judge ruled he is a kook. So he is a kook till an appeals court reverses the ruling.

Re:Damn that commy cut and paste buffer (3, Insightful)

electrictroy (912290) | more than 6 years ago | (#22847308)

(1) People driving large, damaging vehicles also pay more in gasoline taxes because those types of vehicles are gas guzzlers.

(2) "Don't damage the road" is not justification to deny someone's right to travel. Nor is "you are black" justification to enslave a person. Or "you are a pregnant woman" justification to deny the right to get a job. And on and on. Rights can not be taken away for trivial, bullshit reasons.

(3) Horse/buggies actually do quite a bit of damage to roads, so by your reasoning they should be banned until properly registered.

However the Amish Americans are very resourceful at getting their way. That's why they don't have licenses, they do pay property tax, but not income tax, nor social security, nor medicare. They may be "old-fashioned" but they still believe in HUMAN RIGHTS FROM GOD, and no politician is going to convince an Amish American that he has the authority to overrule the creator, or ban them from using the People's Roads. Therefore they don't follow what they consider to be unjust, illegal, unconstitutional laws.

I guess that makes Amish Americans "kooks" too?
Oh well; I suspect they don't care what you think.

Re:Damn that commy cut and paste buffer (2)

Fjandr (66656) | more than 6 years ago | (#22846002)

Or he is going to demand the same poor sheriff to find the thieves and restore his property, with so clear title he has to him?

Considering it's the sheriff's legal obligation to protect the rights (such as property) of the individuals in his county, the answer would obviously be "yes." This question really has no bearing on the assertions made in that link.

Having known others who have successfully done the same thing, the only thing that any of the people who do this have to endure is harassment. If it were really kooky, they'd lose their vehicles and end up in jail. However, neither of those things actually happen.

Just because you (and most others) may believe that the status quo is legitimate does not actually make it so. The fact that courts dismiss these cases is a bit more telling.

Re:Did the MT extension had anything to with this? (5, Insightful)

drooling-dog (189103) | more than 6 years ago | (#22844118)

This setback for DHS is a very good and important thing. What I'd really like to see, though, is about 100,000 citizens converging on their local airport and taking it back through the sheer weight of their numbers.

Re:Did the MT extension had anything to with this? (2, Insightful)

xSauronx (608805) | more than 6 years ago | (#22844362)

it just struck me....but wouldnt this be the kind of thing people could do, but call their group "anonymous" while they protested it...? /not yet awake

Re:Did the MT extension had anything to with this? (2, Interesting)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 6 years ago | (#22845696)

"This setback for DHS is a very good and important thing. What I'd really like to see, though, is about 100,000 citizens converging on their local airport and taking it back through the sheer weight of their numbers."

I applaude CA for this too, but, it does bring up a VERY troubling thought. Why did DHS back off their strict regulations when it came to CA, but, not all the other states?!?!?

This is, after all, the United States of America. Isn't each state supposed to be an equal of the rest of the states? Just because one state has greater land mass and population, it is not more important or have greater rights that a small state like Rhode Island!! Hell, they set up congress with a senate to have equal representation among all states, to balance out the HOR with proportional representation, so obviously each state is supposed to be an equal in this union when it comes to rights.

Man...we're getting further and further away from the principals this country was founded upon. I hope at least on this RealID thing...states will finally make a stand, and start maybe with this as an example, to get the Feds off their backs and assert where the true power in the US is supposed to reside....the states!

Re:Did the MT extension had anything to with this? (1)

Neko-kun (750955) | more than 6 years ago | (#22847232)

Cause it's easier to over run Rhode Island with DHS agents than California :P

And if it really worked that way, ALL the states would follow California's emissions standards not just, you know, California*...

*I'm aware there are a couple states that do

Re:Did the MT extension had anything to with this? (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 6 years ago | (#22845800)

People get all wishy washy when libertarians talk about state's rights.
Federalists too. Libertarians aren't the only ones with an interest in states' rights.

Re:Did the MT extension had anything to with this? (0, Troll)

JDWTopGuy (209256) | more than 6 years ago | (#22844560)

What's this from? I'm probably supposed to know, I feel like a n00b.

Re:Did the MT extension had anything to with this? (1)

Hillgiant (916436) | more than 6 years ago | (#22844700)

Hunt for Red October, I think. It has been a while since I read it.

Good (5, Insightful)

johnsonav (1098915) | more than 6 years ago | (#22843750)

I wish states would step up and grow a pair more often. It's about time the states remembered their place in our system of checks and balances.

Re:Good (1, Interesting)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 6 years ago | (#22843824)

I've oft heard the argument made that the idea of states' rights makes less sense nowadays when people regularly move to a different state than their own for university, and then perhaps to a different state to work, and then perhaps to yet another state to retire. Instead of a band of 13 somewhat diverse colonies where people felt some allegiance just to their neighbours instead of the whole country, we now have national media and increasing cultural homogeny (Red/Blue state issues aside). We might as well reflect that in government.

Re:Good (5, Interesting)

johnsonav (1098915) | more than 6 years ago | (#22843964)

I've oft heard the argument made that the idea of states' rights makes less sense nowadays when people regularly move to a different state than their own for university, and then perhaps to a different state to work, and then perhaps to yet another state to retire.
There are many people who move to Wisconsin to take advantage of their great public University. Then move away to a state, like California or Arizona to work where there are more jobs in their area of expertise. Then they retire to Florida, where they pay no state income tax. It is only because of the states' sovereignty, separate from the Federal Government, that the people in those states can decide for themselves what is important.

States' rights make more sense now than ever before. People are able to move from state to state more easily than in the past. It's a feedback loop. As more retirees move to states like Florida and vote, more retiree friendly legislation gets passed, and more are drawn there as a result. They are happy because they get to live in a state where they have the votes to get what they want. And I'm happy they aren't here driving ten under the speed limit, clogging up the highways where I live. It's win-win.

Re:Good (2, Funny)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 6 years ago | (#22844106)

Great idea, lets divide the population into seperate states based on age, 50 states means everyone gets to move roughly once a year before retiring to Florida. We can start by sending everyone under 30 to Alaska, that'll keep those damm kids off my lawn and make the highway safe to drive on.

Re:Good (3, Insightful)

electrictroy (912290) | more than 6 years ago | (#22845432)

You seem to have missed the main point:

- State Legislatures operate as a counter-balance against the D.C. government becoming too dictatorial. For example, California's Legislature refusing to implement the "real id" (or as I say, Spy ID) in its current form is a way to remind the D.C. politicians to stop acting like nationalized tyrants.

If States rights did not exist, we'd all be living like D.C. residents (no medical marijuana allowed, ~$100 a year vehicle tax, universal gun ban, et cetera, et cetera). By allowing States to act independently, we keep at least *some* of our freedoms because the State Legislatures act as a counterweight against power-hungry D.C.

Re:Good (2, Insightful)

DustyShadow (691635) | more than 6 years ago | (#22844654)

Instead of a band of 13 somewhat diverse colonies where people felt some allegiance just to their neighbours instead of the whole country, we now have national media and increasing cultural homogeny (Red/Blue state issues aside). We might as well reflect that in government.
That would require amending the U.S. Constitution. I don't see that happening any time soon.

Re:Good (1)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 6 years ago | (#22844854)

We can selectively interpret the Constitution to reflect changes in society.

Re:Good (1, Insightful)

DustyShadow (691635) | more than 6 years ago | (#22845020)

Only the Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution. Not us and definitely not the Executive branch. The federal government can do only what the Constitution allows it to do. That power is quite limited. Any other powers are left to the states.

Re:Good (2, Insightful)

electrictroy (912290) | more than 6 years ago | (#22845554)

But as Thomas Jefferson said, "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps."

As for "selectively interpreting" the Constitution?

That's a HORRIBLE idea. It's equivalent to saying we should selectively enforce some laws ("don't drive faster than 65") but not others ("it's okay to steal because we have selectively decided not to enforce that law"). Stupid idea.

Re:Good (1)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | more than 6 years ago | (#22845632)

As for "selectively interpreting" the Constitution?

Well, the Supreme Court looks at the same issues again. For instance, Plessy v. Fergison and then Brown v. Board of Education. That's because the 9th, 10th and 14th amendments are intentionally vauge and catch-alls. At the same time, the 14th amendment, and, due to changing conditions concerning interstate commerce, the commerce clause, give the federal government growing power over the states.

I think it's a good thing that in some cases the constitution states concepts like "people should be treated equally under the law" and lets society modify the details over time.

Re:Good (1)

2nd Post! (213333) | more than 6 years ago | (#22846386)

Don't the people own all powers not explicitly defined for the various governments?

Re:Good (5, Insightful)

johnsonav (1098915) | more than 6 years ago | (#22845098)

We can, and do. But there is nothing in the constitution that could be interpreted to remove states' sovereignty. The constitution was written, and remains, a compact between states and their respective citizenry. The constitution does not grant the states the right to exist; the states grant the federal government the right to exist. We can come up with new ways of interpreting the constitution, or even write a whole new one, but without rewriting each state constitution there is no way to remove their sovereignty.

The states have ceded a lot of authority to the federal government over the past 200 years, especially since the Civil War. Much of that, civil rights for example, has been for the best. But the ability of the states to write and enforce their own laws is what made it possible for this country to grow from 13 colonies to one of the most geographically and culturally diverse countries in the world. Laws that may apply to the dairy farmers in Wisconsin may be counterproductive in a largely urban state like New Jersey.

States rights are still important even after the closing of our western frontier and slower growth today. State governments are more responsive, flexible and approachable than the federal government. Local politics may not be as sexy as the soap opera in Washington, but if you truly want your voice to be heard, local and state is the only way to go.

The states have tremendous untapped power even now, in this age of a strong central government. Washington just got used to pushing whatever they wanted down the states' throats. Even if I thought that REAL ID was a good idea, I still want the states to dust off their boots once in a while, just to keep everyone on their toes.

Re:Good (1)

Fjandr (66656) | more than 6 years ago | (#22846058)

And that they are allowed to do this, my friend, is the fundamental flaw in the way government works today.

Re:Good (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 6 years ago | (#22845738)

"I've oft heard the argument made that the idea of states' rights makes less sense nowadays when people regularly move to a different state than their own for university, and then perhaps to a different state to work, and then perhaps to yet another state to retire."

I think that should actually be an argument more FOR states rights. Since we are more able to move at will, we could more easily move to a state that 'thought' more along the lines we do. You don't like the drinking laws in NH? Well...then move to LA, home of the 'to go cup'.

Silly example, but, there are more serious reasons one might want to move and live in another state.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22843828)

I agree. It would be refreshing to see the governor of any state, especially California, help to terminate the Real ID movement.

Am I the only one (-1, Offtopic)

keirre23hu (638913) | more than 6 years ago | (#22843910)

who thinks that is a good thing that something like this is deployed. On one hand, having not heard about it, it makes you wonder what other surveillance is going on and how intrusive it may be. At the same time, its difficult to see something like radiation detection equipment infringing on personal rights. I guess its a question of where to draw the line, but I dont have a problem with scanning cars on the highway for high levels of radiation, it doesnt harm the passengers (I assume - IANA Nuclear Engineer or Physicist).

I am sure someone somewhere will think that is infringing on their right to drive up the 5 with a radioactive cat. And, for the record, I think that is a bit ridiculous, and I would be the last person to say we should cede rights for security (I have heard Ben Franklin and others quotes already ad infinitum), I think this is a good thing(tm)

Its Official... I am an Idiot (0, Offtopic)

keirre23hu (638913) | more than 6 years ago | (#22843932)

Posted this to the wrong story... need caffeine

Its Official... I am an Idiot too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22844330)

No apologies necessary. Shoot, I rather enjoyed it. Radioactivity? Cats in cars? Danger?

Are you talking about that one episode on SNL where the wounded Terminator trys to warn Linda Hamilton that Toonces can't drive?

Re:Good (3, Interesting)

twistedsymphony (956982) | more than 6 years ago | (#22844238)

I wish states would step up and grow a pair more often. It's about time the states remembered their place in our system of checks and balances.
Whenever someone goes on about giving more power to the federal government I politely remind them that this is the UNITED STATES of America ... not the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT of America.

I live in NH and a co-worker was complaining about NH was not adopting RealID and that they would have to suffer additional search and seizure at the Airports and borders because of it. After explaining what Real ID entails, they agreed with me that it's good to be a NH citizen, where on many an occasion we thumb our noses at invasive federal programs that do more harm than good.

There's a reason NH was chosen for the Free State Project [freestateproject.org] , as much as I hate the winter months here, IMO, it's politically the best state to live in (tax wise it's the 2nd best state to live in too, and that's only because Alaskans get oil kickbacks).

Re:Good (1)

spikedvodka (188722) | more than 6 years ago | (#22844824)

"Live, Freeze and Cry"

though I hear you about the winters... me being a maineiac

Re:Good (1)

electrictroy (912290) | more than 6 years ago | (#22845688)

I *love* winter! Snuggle-up next to a warm fire with the gentle hum of a computer nearby & some sci-fi flickering on the telly. Ahhh. Cozy.

It's better than Charlotte NC where I once lived.
So darn hot, you can't go outside without
feeling like a turkey roast in an oven.

(Besides with the supposed "global warming" coming along, New Hampshire may soon be like Maryland or Jersey - not too hot; not too col; just right.) ;-)

Re:Good (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 6 years ago | (#22845848)

"It's better than Charlotte NC where I once lived. So darn hot, you can't go outside without feeling like a turkey roast in an oven."

Then don't even think of moving to the New Orleans area...I've had to turn on my A/C a few times already this year...I think the first time was back in Feb.

10th Amendment is basically ignored. (4, Insightful)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 6 years ago | (#22844306)

States lost a lot of their rights when they permitted people to choose Senators and ever since then the Federal Government has run over the states...

Re:10th Amendment is basically ignored. (1)

zehaeva (1136559) | more than 6 years ago | (#22845044)

some one please mod parent into the stratosphere please; we ignore the constitution way too often here.

Re:Good (4, Insightful)

Panaflex (13191) | more than 6 years ago | (#22844754)

If Cali had a pair they'd let this date slip without a word... TSA would hit the wall, DHS would get no respect.

You want to kill a law? Then ignore it.

Re:Good (1)

BForrester (946915) | more than 6 years ago | (#22845252)

The onus is on Georgia and Louisiana to each "grow one" -- given that they are adjacent to Florida, the state widely recognized by geographers as "America's Wang."

Re:Good (1)

oatworm (969674) | more than 6 years ago | (#22846834)

I think they prefer "The Sunshine State".

Jorbs, they be taking mine (2, Interesting)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 6 years ago | (#22843768)

Anti-immigrant fervor has grown steadily during the Bush administration, mostly due to the over-investment in foreign workers during the Clinton administration and the economic downturn during the early 2000s. The anger is mostly directed at Mexican and South (and Central) American foreigners who are perceived as coming into the US and stealing jobs from hard working Americans.

Hence the call for RealID. If you have one, supposedly you can finally prove that you are a citizen and entitled to all the rights and privileges thereto. Mexican? Sorry, amigo, don't let the fence scratch you on the way out. So with all the anger towards jerb-takers, politicians see an easy way to gain votes and not actually fix anything: RealID.

It is particularly sad that we're not more open to qualified foreigners, but rather lump all immigrants (legal or not) into the same category of jerb-stealers. If you want to see what the average American thinks of immigrants, watch Lou Dobbs once in a while. Then you'll understand that not only is there a strong desire in this country for RealID, but that those people are sadly the majority.

Re:Jorbs, they be taking mine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22843832)

I could go for some serious elaboration here. I genuinely don't understand this sentiment?

Like, how could one think that RealID would fix any of those problems? If employers want to only hire Americans, I imagine it's very easy to tell who is American. And if you want to be *really* rigorous, you could try passports?

There could well be something I'm missing?

Re:Jorbs, they be taking mine (2, Informative)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 6 years ago | (#22843870)

See the Citizenship and National Origin sections: http://hr.albany.edu/content/legalqtn.asp [albany.edu]

It is illegal to do what you are suggesting above.

Re:Jorbs, they be taking mine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22843958)

Hmm. So it is. Well, to an extent.

It appears that one can ask whether they are citizen before hiring. Then require proof after having hired. I know little of the labour laws, but surely having lied in an interview is sufficient to fire someone.

It still sounds to me like it is perfectly easy for employers to not hire illegal immigrants if they don't want to...

Re:Jorbs, they be taking mine (2, Funny)

plover (150551) | more than 6 years ago | (#22843892)

"Dey took our jerbs!"

It's easy to point to Manuel and blame him for cleaning toilets for $2.00/hr. After all, his skin is darker, and he don't talk 'murrican.

The real jerb problem in this country is not that Manuel is doing the $7.00/hr job for $2, but that our corporations have been shipping all our jerbs overseas, (both in manufacturing and services) and the corporations continue to pour U.S. dollars over the borders faster than Mexicans can climb back in. The large corporate interests must be pleased that all the focus on border security is masking their bigger role in collapsing our economy for their profit.

"Dey took our jerbs!"

Re:Jorbs, they be taking mine (3, Interesting)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 6 years ago | (#22843972)

The source of the angst is not Manuel, though. It was Binter from India who came here on an H1-B and took that PM job from Joe America Programmer. The loss of high-quality jobs to immigrants who have no intention of staying in the US for long periods is the root cause here.

There are two ways to look at Binter. The first, unfortunately, is the way we have reacted. We turned against him and Manuel and want them out of the country so that we can have those jobs back.

The second is to look at the benefits that these people bring to the country and strive to keep them here. Which is to say that we should be encouraging the best and brightest from around the world to come here and stay here instead of acting as a five year internship and then sending them home.

But anti-immigrant sentiment is nothing new, and it will always be fomented by the government whenever they need to gain some quick votes.

Re:Jorbs, they be taking mine (1)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 6 years ago | (#22844016)

The reason Binter wants to go back to his home country is because he can buy a house and live like a king with the money he saved while working in the West. You see the same thing with Moroccans who slave for a decade in France and then move back to their home village in Morocco where they build themselves a gigantic house and enjoy a nice and fairly early retirement. When that's their motivation, it's hard to keep them here.

Re:Jorbs, they be taking mine (1)

electrictroy (912290) | more than 6 years ago | (#22845788)

I object.

It's not the immigrants I dislike. My closest friends were born in Japan, China, and Afghanistan, and I welcome them to the United States.

It's the ones who think "I'm above the law and don't need no stinkin' visa" who annoy me. My other friends followed legal procedure, filled-out all the necessary forms, and became U.S. citizens per the standards laid-out by the People's representatives in Congress.

The illegals did not.

They should be packed into buses, handed the required "request to become citizen" forms, and sent home to follow the *proper* way to enter this country. No man is above the Law of the land, not the U.S. president, not you or me, and certaintly not illegal entrants.

 

Re:Jorbs, they be taking mine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22845464)

It is not a matter of quick votes. Basically, it is a matter of Adam Smith. This is the way the capitalism works. For the capitalist economy to work you need to have constant changes on the demand and supply chain, including the labor force one.
Basically, when the economy is growing, they need a fast influx of available labor, so the government and the press go to TV and start to sing Star Splanged Banner and say that we are a country of Immigrants, yada, yada, and then, voila!, the capitalists got their excess supply of labor force and they can throw the wages down, to maximize profits. They also give away easy credit, so the poor American Joe can buy all the beautiful things he sees in Cribbs.
Then, when the cycle of expansion must end, so the big capitalists can stop to invest money on capacity expansion, and finally take all the profit to their deep pockets, the government throws some airplanes on some buildings and start to campaign on tv, together with our amazing free press. So they begin to say that all the immigrants are raping white women (I really don't know why a Latin immigrant would rape a white-trash wacko instead of a hot Latina, but Bill O'Reilly knows), that all immigrants are terrorists, that all immigrants are stealing our jobs. So they deport everybody, and the supply of labor force falls. Then they cash in.
And they have excess profit so they can invest more, so there comes another cycle of Immigration is good, we are a country of Immigrants, etc.
Is just pure capitalism working, nothing else. And that is the reason why California will always have a more pliable Immigration approach. Basically, California's economy needs more and constant influx of excess labor force, because it is way bigger than the rest of the US.

Re:Jorbs, they be taking mine (1)

moeinvt (851793) | more than 6 years ago | (#22844710)

"The real j[o]b problem in this country is . . . that our corporations have been shipping all our [jobs] overseas."

You can't blame a corporation, whose sole purpose is to maximize profits for the shareholders, for taking advantage of a regulatory environment that encourages overseas investment. Nor can you blame them for engaging in legal lobbying practices in an effort to pass legislation that's in their best interests. The problem is the Republicans and Democrats who continue to create government policy that's contrary to the best interests of the vast majority of the population.

Or, perhaps you can go a step further and blame the vast majority of the population for voting these politicians into office, but I'd tend to cut the voters a little bit of slack considering the circumstances.

Re:Jorbs, they be taking mine (2, Insightful)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 6 years ago | (#22844256)

Anti-immigrant fervor has grown steadily during the Bush administration, mostly due to the over-investment in foreign workers during the Clinton administration and the economic downturn during the early 2000s. The anger is mostly directed at Mexican and South (and Central) American foreigners who are perceived as coming into the US and stealing jobs from hard working Americans.

The same might be said for Europe, and currently for the UK who also have a fetish for wanting a "super" biometric ID cards and, more importantly, the all-knowing database behind it. Want to buy something in a store with cash, show us your ID card first. Did you vote for the wrong party, your ID is cancelled and you become a non-person, unable to get state benefits / pension / health-care.

The governments are very keen on using the pretext of immigration for ID cards etc., but it is they that deliberately open the borders to let anyone in, it is a problem they can control at an instant at no cost. Having people associate proving ID with controlling immigration is a real bonus.

No, the real reason behind having the ID system is that the government wants to know about YOU, they don't care about the immigrants. Freedom is rapidly dying as people forget (or more likely never taught) what WW2 was all about.

Re:Jorbs, they be taking mine (4, Insightful)

asuffield (111848) | more than 6 years ago | (#22844664)

The same might be said for Europe, and currently for the UK who also have a fetish for wanting a "super" biometric ID cards and, more importantly, the all-knowing database behind it.


It's fairly well known in the UK that the ID card is just a political front for MI5 and the police force's desire to build a fingerprint database of everybody in the country. Nobody wants the cards, they just want to work around the recently passed laws that prohibited them from collecting DNA and fingerprints of people who aren't criminals, and they've seized on the idea of creating an ID card as an excuse to write new laws that will let them.

I doubt they even care whether the project succeeds in producing an ID card (it's currently failing, spectacularly - after three years of funding they've started collecting the fees and writing down your names, but there is no card, no database, no fingerprint collection, and no firm plan for when or even how they are going to do anything other than collect more fees; they are still wrangling with the contractors about who is going to be responsible for working out the plans for these various parts). The important part for them is that the laws will still be on the books, so they can escape from the recently imposed restrictions, even if there never is any card.

Re:Jorbs, they be taking mine (1)

asuffield (111848) | more than 6 years ago | (#22844534)

It is particularly sad that we're not more open to qualified foreigners, but rather lump all immigrants (legal or not) into the same category of jerb-stealers. If you want to see what the average American thinks of immigrants, watch Lou Dobbs once in a while. Then you'll understand that not only is there a strong desire in this country for RealID, but that those people are sadly the majority.


It has been known for some time that people of limited literacy (can read enough to flip burgers, can't read enough to work in an office) form a majority in the US - you have a majority that's either uneducated or just plain stupid.

Re:Jorbs, they be taking mine (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 6 years ago | (#22844542)

It has been known for some time that people of limited literacy (can read enough to flip burgers, can't read enough to work in an office) form a majority in the US - you have a majority that's either uneducated or just plain stupid.

USA! USA! USA!

Re:Jorbs, they be taking mine (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 6 years ago | (#22846732)

"It has been known for some time that people of limited literacy (can read enough to flip burgers, can't read enough to work in an office) form a majority in the US - you have a majority that's either uneducated or just plain stupid."

Actually, if you look at the majority of burger flippers out there....they also cannot speak English, because they aren't from the US. The sad thing is...there are many that are trying to give them the right to vote too!!

--And the invasion continues...

If it wasn't for arnold ... (4, Funny)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | more than 6 years ago | (#22843806)

Good thing they've got the governator.

If it wasn't for him, we'd be dead from aliens and terminators and who knows what else! Its no wonder that even the DHS can't push him around.

Who is being protected? (4, Interesting)

Nomen Publicus (1150725) | more than 6 years ago | (#22843834)

Identity has little if anything to do with intent.

Citizens with valid and accurate papers are perfectly capable of entering a federal building with evil intent.

So you have to wonder exactly what the government thinks it is protecting itself from by using REAL ID?

Re:Who is being protected? (5, Insightful)

AJWM (19027) | more than 6 years ago | (#22845340)

Citizens with valid and accurate papers are perfectly capable of entering a federal building with evil intent.

Heck, citizens with valid papers and evil intent don't even need to enter a federal building to cause harm. Timothy McVeigh just parked his Ryder truck full of ANFO in front of the federal building in Oklahoma City.

The bit about preventing non-RealID holders from entering federal buildings has nothing to do with securing the buildings and everything to do with extorting compliance with RealID.

Upset Federal Judges and Litigators (5, Interesting)

resistant (221968) | more than 6 years ago | (#22843848)

As has been remarked before (by myself and others), one of the more interesting results of demanding such specific identification of residents of states that balk at Big Brother is the abrupt denial of the Constitutional right to seek redress of grievances in the courts (read the Federal courts). If you have such "leper" identification, suddenly you cannot sue anyone in the Federal courts, or even show up to defend yourself if you are sued in a Federal court or charged with a crime in the Federal courts, or testify as a material witness in Federal courts. Will Federal judges issue contempt of court citations against the defendants, or against the armed agents who prevent the defendants or witnesses from entering the courtrooms? Getting Federal agents to enforce a blizzard of contempt of court citations against themselves could be problematic. I am not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to be one at drunken parties, but this all seems entertaining in a grim way.

Re:Upset Federal Judges and Litigators (1)

Harmonious Botch (921977) | more than 6 years ago | (#22843868)

You can enter the courtrooms. You just get searched more intensively.

Re:Upset Federal Judges and Litigators (5, Interesting)

resistant (221968) | more than 6 years ago | (#22844358)

On the contrary, after the deadline, you cannot (legally) enter Federal buildings and therefore the courtrooms in them, even if you agree to be searched with a microscope and a probe captured from the aliens at Roswell. Without a "Real ID" identification or a (Federally issued) passport, you're technically screwed. Lots of people have no passport, nor feel any need for a passport, which is supposed to be only for entering and leaving the country, not for basic civil rights.

As a practical matter, though, I gravely doubt that the judges in those courtrooms would allow for an instant actually barring people from their courtrooms, leading nervous Federal security agents to ignore the black letter wording of the law, perhaps doing as you suggest and settling for giving the hairy eyeball to anyone arriving, voluntarily or otherwise, without his duly issued mark of the beast. They like giving people the hairy eyeball anyway, even without encouragement.

I suppose with this regime sooner or later someone will get cute and claim through a lawyer that he can't answer a summons regardless from a Federal judge because the law plainly forbids him from entering a Federal building without a "Real ID" identification or passport, and he has neither, and he cannot be legally forced to break the law. That would be amusing, although probably not to the judge who would be issuing contempt of court citations.

BTW, the Wikipedia entry is interesting and might as well be hereby linked [wikipedia.org]

.

Re:Upset Federal Judges and Litigators (2, Interesting)

sconeu (64226) | more than 6 years ago | (#22846590)

Now that's an idea.

Sue the Federal Government over the Real ID. Send you lawyer to court. When the judge asks "Where's the plaintiff?", your lawyer states that you are legally barred from entering the courtroom by the Real ID act.

DHS: Will You Marry Me? (3, Funny)

organgtool (966989) | more than 6 years ago | (#22843860)

DHS is coming across as a desperate guy who proposed to a woman way out of his league. He anxiously tells his friends "She didn't commit to a 'yes', but she committed to thinking about committing".

Montana Governor (4, Interesting)

Speare (84249) | more than 6 years ago | (#22843990)

A couple weeks ago, I heard the governor of Montana on NPR, talking about why his state wasn't going along with the federal plan. It was an embarrassing interview, he tried to sound folksy as a rural westerner would, but ended up sounding ornery, obstinate for no real reason, and clueless on the real issues. In my opinion, he missed a real chance to explain real reasons why Real ID doesn't make sense. I very much wish that they would get security experts like Bruce Schneier to talk in layman's terms about the actual shortcomings, or even Constitutional scholars to talk about the states-rights issues that apply here, than to get politicos who just want to explain why they "ain't signin' up today fer a concept of tomarra."

Re:Montana Governor (2, Informative)

superid (46543) | more than 6 years ago | (#22844144)

The interview can be found here [npr.org] I heard it too but have not re-listened to it. I suppose he could have been a little more polished and less cranky but I think the gist of his argument was that it was a nebulous federal requirement that would cost Montana money and there would be no benefit.

I hope he doesn't back down.

Re:Montana Governor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22844196)

I agree his heart's in the right place and he does know his own reasons for disagreeing with the plan. He just didn't explain it, and when so few people out there really understand security OR freedom, this guy may have set back the debate.

Re:Montana Governor (1)

DannyO152 (544940) | more than 6 years ago | (#22844678)

Never underestimate the power of cranky cheapskatery to convince an electorate. Indeed, "it will raise taxes" can kill initiatives which have long-term payoffs. I'm glad this time the argument is on the side of the angels and Declaration of Independence.

Re:Montana Governor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22844532)

I call BS on that. I heard that interview and it got me really fired up for the first time. It may not have motivated you, but it motivated me. When he said it's time to "tell them to go to Hell", I realized that there IS at least one politician with some balls. How rare.

Schneier on Real ID (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22845862)

REAL ID [schneier.com]
National ID Cards [schneier.com]
Identification and Security [schneier.com]

States the Last Hope? (4, Insightful)

Phoenix666 (184391) | more than 6 years ago | (#22844064)

Congress won't defend the Constitution or Rule of Law anymore. The Supreme Court has been compromised.

Perhaps the states are our last hope. If California, New York, and just a few of the other big states say no to all the nonsense, the federal government shall have to back down or stage a coup.

It would be great to see them band together and take a very strong, pro-Constitutionalist stance on RealID, as well as the other recent intrusions on states' rights (I mean it in the Constitutional sense, not the neo-con sense).

For instance, the deployment of National Guard overseas at the expense of Civil Defense; the National Guard units belong to their respective states and actually answer to the governors, not the President. Or take the Medical Marijuana initiatives that passed all around the country in 2006 and which the Federal Government has been trying to countermand--it's not my issue but the states have the right under the Constitution to regulate such matters within their own borders.

Maybe, just maybe, if the states lead the way Congress will grow a pair.

Re:States the Last Hope? (1)

Atlantis-Rising (857278) | more than 6 years ago | (#22844158)

See, this is a view that I don't understand and never really understood.

You say "Congress won't defend the constitution or the rule of law", but it's Congress's job to create the rule of law, and it does that.

You say the "Supreme Court has been compromised", and yet the purpose of the Supreme Court is to rule on constitutional questions (among other things), and it's doing that.

Now, Congress may not be enacting the laws you like, and the Supreme Court may not be ruling the way you think it should. But Congress is empowered with enacting the law, and the Supreme Court is empowered with judging it, and as I see it, both groups are doing exactly that.

Re:States the Last Hope? (1)

moeinvt (851793) | more than 6 years ago | (#22846294)

"You say "Congress won't defend the constitution or the rule of law", but it's Congress's job to create the rule of law, and it does that."

The point is that Congress is also BOUND BY laws. Just because Congress is empowered to create and pass legislation doesn't mean that they are somehow immune from existing laws. Furthermore, their powers are specifically elaborated in The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. If they were defending the Constitution, they would have, for instance stopped a renegade executive from stripping them of their exclusive power to declare war. They'd also be holding hearings into why the executive branch is spying on U.S. citizens without probably cause, etc. etc.

"You say the "Supreme Court has been compromised", and yet the purpose of the Supreme Court is to rule on constitutional questions (among other things), and it's doing that."

Perhaps "subverted" would have been a better description? Yes, they're making rulings all the time, but if their rulings are no longer in line with the Constitution, then they are failing to uphold the law and should be removed from their positions . . . but now we're back to Congress again.

Re:States the Last Hope? (1)

Atlantis-Rising (857278) | more than 6 years ago | (#22846794)

The point is that Congress is also BOUND BY laws. Just because Congress is empowered to create and pass legislation doesn't mean that they are somehow immune from existing laws. Furthermore, their powers are specifically elaborated in The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. If they were defending the Constitution, they would have, for instance stopped a renegade executive from stripping them of their exclusive power to declare war. They'd also be holding hearings into why the executive branch is spying on U.S. citizens without probably cause, etc. etc.

Yes, Congress is bound by the laws. However, what you are talking about with regard to the Executive are not issues of constitutional jurisdiction but of political will. Congress has many avenues legally available to it, but it chooses not to exercise them. In this case, you have Congress tactictly agreeing with the executive. If you feel that's inappropriate, there is recourse via the Court.

Perhaps "subverted" would have been a better description? Yes, they're making rulings all the time, but if their rulings are no longer in line with the Constitution, then they are failing to uphold the law and should be removed from their positions . . . but now we're back to Congress again.

In your opinion. Given that the Court is given the JOB of interpreting the constitution, perhaps a rational entity would conclude that if you and they disagree on whether something is in line with the constitution, we might merely give them the benefit of the doubt.

As for whether it is in line to impeach judges for refusing to toe the line of Congress, that's arguable at best, and Marbury v. Madison and Powell v. McCormack both point out that the Court feels it may have jurisdiction in cases where they are not mere 'political issues'. In practice, if I recall correctly, this means that impeaching judges is only really done when they have committed crimes.

Phoenix666 in 2012! (1)

iknownuttin (1099999) | more than 6 years ago | (#22844186)

Run for the Constitutional Party!

I've been reading "John Adams" and I'm really starting to see how far we, the USA, have strayed.

Re:States the Last Hope? (2, Insightful)

Sandbags (964742) | more than 6 years ago | (#22845040)

The states do have their own soverign rights. Many of them fought against changing driking laws to 21, many against manditory seat belt laws, many against multiple speed limit changes. Fact is, all the federal government has to do is wave federal highway money in front of them (or threaten to take it away) and the states will bend and take it in the ass. They have over and over and over again...

Facts:
- The Real-ID system will be at least as secure (if not more) than the best existing state ID system in place currently. Sure, it will be a big target, but it will also be closely guarded by top security people since it's such a public issue. Access will be restricted to public sector netowrks, not open to the public or common hacking attacks, just like the ATM network and existing police and DMV systems. It will be monitored constantly. Do you think South Carolina has a top notch FBI security team monitoring access to THEIR systems? I can tell you as someone who knows a few former programmers at the for SC state who wrote that system, NO IT CERTAINLY DOES NOT! there have even been breakins at DMV offices where PC, printer, and blank IDs have been stolen since the system requires no direct connection to a secure validation network in order to print IDs.

- Currently, all you have to do if you loose your license in one state is move to another and apply for a licesne there. Too many DUI's? just move and reset. Under Federally issued ID, this will not be possible, and states can protect themselves from repeat bad drivers (driving is a privelidge, not a right, and if you abuse it, we have the right to take it away and make sure you can't get it back, even if you move). This will lower insurance costs across the board.

- Few people in security (professional residential, even bartenders) can be expected to know how to spot fake IDs from every state (There are over 200 legal forms of ID circulating in america). With a single secure ID, we don't have to even look for fake info, we can swipe it, compare a computer screen to information on the ID, and compare the picture to the person, even use a biometric scan as further confirmation. RFID may not be secure, and it may only take a few days for someone to crack the chip in the ID and distribute hardware and software to edit it, but cracking the text printed on the ID will be much tougher. The state of CT has one of the hardest to forge IDs I've ever seen, and I've not seen them all. If REAL-ID takes even a handfull of their tricks, you won't see a lot of these faked (especially if it becomes a federal crime to do so, not a local misdemeanor!)

- Anyone with a valid or fake ID today can sneak into just about any federal building. Real ID will make this more, not less, secure, as fakes will be easier to spot, and real ones that are invalid will be harder to get.

- yes, you information will be accessible by more agencies and organizations than ever before. Most of this will still require a warrent unless it's for entering say a speeding ticket. Your financial information will not be tied to this ID, only your address, ID number, and a few minor details about you. It's no more secure of insecure than your current drivers license, which all of us regularly give photocopies of at will to anyone who askes, right? If you already give this out, who cares if agencies, with strict controls over this information and who it's accessed, have it?

- You can't log onto this database and pull records for large amounts of people. This is an integrated and unique system. To get a record, you have to fill out a query. Even as a hacker, and even if you could get onto an authorised terminal or hack your way in, and even if you had a copy of the client software package used to access this database, at best, you can get a few search results at a time, and only 1 record at a time. Search too much or too long, or try to backdoor the system, and it will know. the database will simply be too big to "steal." all you can do is access it. ...and if they do get in, what do they have that they can't get from freely available, non-protected existing public records? Nothing really. As a hacker, do you risk going to prison for life for something you can legally obtain from public tax records??? The only missing detail is the actual real ID number, which since they've made it illegal for anything other than the real-id system itself to use that number as an index, it's useless outside of that system. (SSN numbers are used commonly as an index value in private databases. It will be illegal to use Real-ID for this purpose, thus the value of that number is greatly diminished.

I could go on, but I'm bored.

Bottom line: this system will have better overall security than our existing system of each state trying to secure their own database and custom software, it will allow federal authorities to easily identify people who move from state to state frequently, it will help ensure everyone pays their taxes, it should lower insurance costs, it makes it easier for states to cooperate in interstate matters for criminals, it will virtually end the use of fake IDs by college and high school students, and it will make identity theft harder (at least a little).

And we all know how secure REALID is... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22844178)

I mean, if teenagers have already figured out how to forge them [kmsstv.com] , then real terrorists will have no problem with it either.

So I ask, exactly how secure does this REALID card make us again?

Re:And we all know how secure REALID is... (2, Funny)

ahecht (567934) | more than 6 years ago | (#22845016)

Why Did They Feel The Need To Capitalize Every Word In That Article? It Made It Awkward To Read.

I made so much money on 9-11 (2, Funny)

Rooked_One (591287) | more than 6 years ago | (#22844228)

As soon as I saw it, I knew that mass producing american flags as stickers, magnets, and hats would be a way to make a quick but.

Was it ever! I made so much moola in a such a short period of time that I wish we would get hit again.

of course this is not me - but I simply wanted to raise your emotions about how capitalistic our society is and let you be the judge... how did you feel when I typed that?

Re:I made so much money on 9-11 (1)

Miseph (979059) | more than 6 years ago | (#22844496)

I felt like you should have posted that somewhere more relevant and closer to the top.

You might also want to consider a minor re-write, because it came across as very phony right away. You may also want to consider dropping the disclaimer, because it will greatly change people's responses. It's a sub-par trolling effort at this point in time, but it's a solid concept and with a little reworking I think you could get some truly priceless e-rants.

Re:I made so much money on 9-11 (1)

Rooked_One (591287) | more than 6 years ago | (#22845036)

my apologies - I typed that 10 minutes after I rolled out of bed....

In other words - it made sense to me but the rest of the world was prob left in the dark ;)

could someone articulate to me (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 6 years ago | (#22844508)

exactly what the problem with real id is?

we already have driver's licenses

i don't understand the rabid opposition to it

to me it seems a sort of so what

Re:could someone articulate to me (1)

Reluctant Wizard (984280) | more than 6 years ago | (#22845520)

Agreed.

As I understand it, the Real ID requirement was mandated by congress. DHS is simply enforcing it as written.

And I've not seen any official references to a Real ID compliant driver's license being required to get a job. There is already a federal system to check social security numbers for that.

The big news in recent days is that Chertoff said that non-Real ID compliant DL's will not be acceptable for those wanting to fly on US-originated airline flights. He did state, though, that a passport would be valid for such purposes. Now for all you who think that the Real ID driver's license requirements are too much of a privacy intrusion, why not just get a passport? I got mine a couple of years ago, and all I needed was a photo and my birth certificate -- no fingerprints, no DNA, etc. -- simple.

As a matter of fact, if a law enforcement type ever asks for my DL, the only time I actually show the DL is if I'm driving, as that's the purpose of it. The rest of the time, I show my passport. The only information it has is my name, my birth date, and a passport number -- no address, no SS#, nothing. Drives em nuts, cause they just keep looking back and forth between it and me, and not really knowing what to do. They really don't know how to treat it: they can't run it against a state or federal database, because they have no access to State Dept. records, they can't cross reference it with any of their traffic or criminal records, and it leaves them feeling a bit out of their league.

They usually just nod, grunt, and give it back, then leave me alone. Priceless!

lol (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 6 years ago | (#22845702)

bureaucratic jujitsu. using the redundancy in the system against itself ;-)

Re:could someone articulate to me (1)

ohearn (969704) | more than 6 years ago | (#22846348)

You should see what happens when you hand them a militaty ID. I've yet to see law enforcement carry a CAC card reader, even in towns that have military bases. Unless they have the proper scanner all they get is a pic, name, and which department under DOD I work for. Everything else is stored in a combination of barcode (pixel code might be more accurate description actually, magnetic swipe, and embedded computer chip.

Of course I also doubt the whole issue of technically not being allowed into a federal building (including court rooms, even if you are he one on trial) without a RealID compliant license carries much weight when you pull out a DOD access card for ID.

Re:could someone articulate to me (1)

Fjandr (66656) | more than 6 years ago | (#22846242)

The problem is the concentration of information in linked databases. That information will be abused if (when) a dictator comes to power, and the more centralized the information the easier it will be to abuse.

If the response is "We'll never have a dictator come to power," other democracies have fallen into dictatorships at one time or another.

Government-held information WILL be abused at some point. It has happened in every governmental system ever put into place in the US, so there is zero reason to expect this system will be different.

you are speaking fear and hysteria (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 6 years ago | (#22846574)

#1. there is nothing in a hypothetical central database that does already exist in an acutal central database today

#2. no one actually lives their lives successfully with the chicken little "the sky is falling!" attitude of ANY DAY NOW WE WILL HAVE HITLER. of course it's possible the usa can lose its democracy and become an authoritarian state someday. howabout we worry about that after we go another inch down that mile required to get to that reality? yes, i can hear your reply already "WE'RE ALREADY ALMOST THERE! WE'RE ON AN USNTOPPABLE SLIPPERY SLOPE!"

zzz

there is such a thing as false complacency

there's also false alarmism

you are very solidly in the false alarmism territory

which is ironic, because you don't successfully fight government initiatives you say are founded on fear and hysteria with fear and hysteria of your own

Speculations on why this could be bad (1)

assertation (1255714) | more than 6 years ago | (#22844550)

It is a bit too "tin foil hat" for me, but this FREE movie does provide valuable speculation as to why people should be worried about things like RealID. Here is a short youtube trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuBo4E77ZXo [youtube.com]

You can download the movie for FREE and LEGALLY here:

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ [zeitgeistmovie.com]

But... didn't the states vote for REAL ID? (5, Insightful)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 6 years ago | (#22844680)

I find it interesting that the states are refusing to implement REAL ID, but the state's representatives voted for it. So who are they representing if their state is willing to flat-out refuse a law? This is a very serious breakdown of representation. It is absolute confirmation that the representative democracy is not working.

The other aspect of all this is that while Slashdotters are praising the states for standing-up for civil rights, the reality is that the states are fighting REAL ID because of funding issues, not because of civil rights issues. If the government tied federal funding of schools (or highways, or parks, or somethng) to the implementation of REAL ID, then the states would quietly fall-in line.

Re:But... didn't the states vote for REAL ID? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22844862)

Actually by state's refusing to go along, it's working as planned. The federal government has no authority to force states to follow RealID, as the Constitution does not delegate the power to license to the federal government.

Re:But... didn't the states vote for REAL ID? (4, Informative)

raymansean (1115689) | more than 6 years ago | (#22846456)

Real ID was tacked onto a must pass military spending bill. It was a sleezy thing to do and there lays the problem with a lot of things that are tacked onto bills. I bill should cover one topic and set forth only one act. IE a spending bill has nothing to do with national ID's.

Re: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22844712)

Having 50 different ID cards in the country isn't ideal, but there are much better ways to go about things. This is just berserk.

Re: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22845596)

But it is ideal.

The number one driving force behind fake IDs in our country are college kids who want to get drunk. Not terrorists, not murderers, just kids who want to go to the bar. These people, collectively, have millions of dollars of spending money behind them, more than any terrorist cell could hope to achieve without playing the lotto.

By keeping them split up among 50 states, the effect of that money will be spread out. Create one single ID nationwide, and the combined money of a bunch of drunk college students will break that ID faster than you can blink.

Is RealID The Mark Of The Beast? (-1, Flamebait)

MichaelCrawford (610140) | more than 6 years ago | (#22844916)

Today's reading is from The Book of Revelation, Chapter 13 [kingjbible.com] , verses 11 through 18:

11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. 12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. 13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, 14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. 15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. 16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: 17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. 18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

Even if you don't place any credence in The Good Book, you could recite chapter and verse to raise opposition to RealID among those who do.

California doesn't need the U.S. (2, Interesting)

echtertyp (1094605) | more than 6 years ago | (#22845344)

California can and should go its own way. California would be a rockin' country, with all of the good things (high tech and babes) and none of the bad stuff (rust belts and religion). Heck, the California flag already says "California Republic". Make it so!

your all missing the plus sides of REAL ID :-) (1)

Jenos (1255810) | more than 6 years ago | (#22845758)

if you can't enter a federal building then you can't be forced to serve on a federal jury :-)

'bout fricking time (1)

Russ Nelson (33911) | more than 6 years ago | (#22846210)

It's about fricking time that the federal government realizes that this is the United STATES, and that it's run BY the states, FOR the states. And if the DHS doesn't like it, they can go screw themselves.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?