Can DHS Force Real ID?
By Allan Holmes | Monday, August 27, 2007 | 01:47 PM
By Allan Holmes | Monday, August 27, 2007 | 01:47 PM
Much was made of Homeland Security Department Secretary Michael Chertoff's comment last week that residents of states that fail to follow the Real ID Act's requirement to issue more secure driver's licenses will be required to show a passport to gain entry into state parks, to board airplanes, or to enter any federal building. According to a CNN article:
"This is not a mandate," Chertoff said. "A state doesn't have to do this, but if the state doesn't have -- at the end of the day, at the end of the deadline -- Real ID-compliant licenses then the state cannot expect that those licenses will be accepted for federal purposes."
Just how serious DHS is about requiring these residents to show passports, or how much power the department has to make it happen, is highly questionable, points out security expert Bruce Schneier. In his blog last week, Schneier wrote that Chertoff's threat is "a lot of bluster." Schneier explained, "The federal government just can't say that citizens of -- for example -- Georgia (which passed a bill in May authorizing the Governor to delay implementation of REAL ID) can't walk into a federal courthouse without a passport. Or can't board an airplane without a passport -- imagine the lobbying by Delta Airlines here. They just can't."
Seventeen states have passed legislation opposing the law and other states are considering similar bills. Washington, Vermont and Arizona have already found some common ground.
Comments
Who are these people who are afraid of a National Id? What do they have to hide or worry about. They are paranoid and listen to the so called Patriots who do not want their identity known. If you are honest and have nothing to hide why are you afraid. Forget Nazi and Russians. This is the U.S. and others want to destroy us and our way of life. I would be the first to get a card but maybe I'm not afraid cause I have been cleared for Secret for years and never worried about constant background checks. Made me feel safe at all times and actually honored that Uncle Sam was looking out for me and also what I did. Anybody remember Clintons buddy who was stuffing Secrets in his socks?
JohnDelGiorno | Saturday, September 15, 2007 | 06:54 PMFor a while I worried that I was a lonely voice crying out into the wind. Reading here, I am greatly relieved. Thank you all.
Just saw the debate the other day. I, evidently like others herein, was impressed by the only Republican candidate to be against the REAL ID and the suspension of habeas corpus by the so called Patriot’s Act. With this voice, they now have a chance at my consideration.
It seems funny to me that the feds have had my fingerprints, my “file”, and my career in their hands for the past 34 years. I even carry several other official ID cards put out by them, both high-tech and low, but I find the increasing pressure to control all facets of life in these United States by the security institutes, less and less tolerable.
There just has to be a better way.
Tip Off | Tuesday, September 11, 2007 | 03:13 PMNext will come the national tattoo (Just incase you should loose your Papers). It will be on your left arm near the elbow. This is just for identification purposes. REMEMBER THIS. It was the 1930s It was in Germany.
Cliff | Tuesday, September 11, 2007 | 08:58 AMLet’s all take a step back here and think about what this act really does. It tells the states that they must include a minimum amount of information in a similar format across the country. I work in bars for several years in Boston, the biggest college town in the country. Over that time I became pretty good at spotting fake IDs, but it takes time to learn the differences between the states. Some put date-of-birth on the front, some on the back. Up until 10 years ago some state licenses didn’t have pictures on them. My point it that we are one of the most sophisticated countries in the world, if the government wants to know information on you they probably already do. Real ID doesn’t “track” people, the RFID technology in the ID’s is not advanced enough to send out homing signals. Everyone take a deep breath, relax, and know that as long as you are a slid, upstanding citizen or legal alien of this country you have nothing to worry about.
Mike M. | Tuesday, September 11, 2007 | 08:50 AMHow on earth can you be worried about the government knowing your name and that you are a citizen. This protects my resources from going to non-citizens - the government is obliged to protect the citizen's money from misuse (they are doing a miserable job, but this will help). Anyone who is worried about this simple measure and ignores the intrusions of the IRS is a fool. They know what you make and from whom, where you live, if you are a citizen, and monitor your bank transactions - then make you pay for it. RealID is a sliver of information that they already have compared to having the IRS jam a log into you.
Glen | Wednesday, September 05, 2007 | 02:16 PMAs an Christian American citizen, I too am deeply troubled by the developing of and implementation of these Real ID cards. They threaten true American ideals in so many ways!
1. They haven't been voted on by any governing body! How can Bush just sign us up as he did?!
2. These cards are an invasion of privacy and are unconstitutional, as is the Patriot Act. Not even the government should be able to track our movements and limit them whenever it choses. It is also unlawful to cut off a citizen's right to work and participate in the economy.
3. Where does it end? Isn't it obvious just how much leverage the government would have to enforce any law they wish to? "We have the right to...!!!" Not if you want to keep your job, medical care, and way of life!
How can the very thought of this not scare you all to death?! This is America, for crying out loud! Why don't we finally act like it?!
Eli | Wednesday, September 05, 2007 | 02:08 PMYes, I want to be safe, but this REAL ID thing will only make me safe from some predators, but endangered by power hungry predators near to home. I do not want to live, as in a Nazi/fascist Europe or a Leninist/Stalinist Soviet Union. One other commentator noted the similarity of having to "show papers" to do anything under those regimes. I deeply fear what is developing.
I am a senior citizen, now, and was 4F for military service. HOWEVER, I am willing (not foolishly desirous) to risk being a civilian victim in a terrorist war, if that is what it takes to keep the rest of the society free. Some of us might die. If so, we will be "soldiers" in the battle no less than military personnel. Perhaps, if more people had been willing to risk death to prevent the insidious, early, day-by-day growth of the Nazi/fascist Europe or Leninist/Stalinist machines from 1916 to 1930, tens of millions of people would not have died or hundreds of millions been enslaved.
Further, I'm a social liberal and a fiscal conservative, though fairly near the center in both, and I've supported gun controls. At this point, I'm starting to think that the gun rights advocates could be too correct: that we must be armed to protect ourselves from internal, ideological usurpers of citizens' rights, not from government, per se.
How many others of you are willing to step up and agree that we must fight terrorism, but realize that zero attacks against us and deaths on our side are ridiculous expectationns?
Bob J | Tuesday, September 04, 2007 | 10:47 AMMaine gives licenses out to anyone who applies. Carloads come from out of state to get driver's licenses. Already other states are not accepting Maine licenses as an ID. Passing out state IDs to all comers means my license/picture ID is useless and I will have to have a passport.
Nancy | Tuesday, September 04, 2007 | 08:35 AMSecretary Chertoff might do well to look to the Constitution. The government is subservient to the people, not the reverse. More to the point, federal buildings and parklands are not OWNED by the federal government. They are property held in trust for the American people, and the people have the unqualified right to their use and enjoyment.
I predict three things:
Real ID will be an unfunded mandate
It will be late
It will not serve the purpose intended.
I will also go so far as to predict that the requirement for passports (for states not complying with real-id) will be successfully challenged by the ACLU.
Concerned citizen | Tuesday, September 04, 2007 | 08:11 AMThis is a Republic. Every state should have its own manner of ID as needed by the state and voted on by its citizens, not by its legislature. If a state's populations wants to give up another freedom in the hope it will mean security, let 'em; but, as long as I get to vote, my vote is NO to anything that gives the feds more power over me and mine. I'm hard-working and law-abiding and I plan to hold onto every freedom we have as long as I can. Vote for Ron Paul and any other candidate running for office who agrees our only hope is a return to our Constitution. Mr. Paul is the only candidate who is interested in the freedom and well-being of individuals. When safety becomes your priority, you are in really BIG trouble!
Dove | Wednesday, August 29, 2007 | 02:08 PMGood thing that at least there is one presidential candidate who is against this proposal - Ron Paul.
Daniel | Tuesday, August 28, 2007 | 09:24 PMREAL ID is only the latest expansion of federal power, though peraps the most potentially dangerous. The combination of having no effective limit upon the federal government to expand its authority under the Commerce Clause and the pervasive dependence of states and localities upon "free" federal dollars have eviscerated federalism. When the federal government pays the piper, it gets to call the tune!
The Person Paying the Piper Calls the Tune | Tuesday, August 28, 2007 | 03:16 PMThe act actually says the following are to be on the document: Name, address, date of birth, gender, driver's license or state ID number, photo, signature and security features to prevent tampering and counterfeiting. The data must be stored on a bar code. This information is already on most state licenses, the difference is the "security features" which do not appear to involve personal information but could be individual numbers. However, your license already has an individual number.
For many years agencies and businesses have tried to make the Social Security Number a national ID. This action is an attempt to get around having a national ID by having the states provide the document with a measure of some uniformity that could be accepted as valid by all states.
The feds can require the use of the new document for proof of identity for things like obtaining a duplicate Social Security card, a student loan, or any other transactions where proof of ID is needed.
In my time as an active duty member of the armed forces, we were forced to give samples of our DNA to be strictly used only for "remains identification." There were several service members court-martialed for refusing to donate samples. It wasn't long afterward, the database was opened up to law enforcement just like the fingerprint database, then soon afterward, aceess to the information was opened up even more. Now, I have no idea who has access to my DNA information. yipee
No matter what the government does, it cannot protect us all from harm- ever. Let's stop trying to get them to. I am a big boy, I look both ways before I cross the street, I can avoid an Internet scam, and if someone hijacks an airliner I'm on, Let's Roll!
No sacrifice of liberty in the name of security
Laurie and like-minded folks - pull your heads out!
Remember learning as children that people in the old Soviet Union could not move freely about their own country without the proper "papers"?? Now you want that here, just so you can feel a little "safer"?
To paraphrase Ben Franklin, those who give up essential liberty in order to gain some security surrender both and deserve neither.
Freedom is not free, it takes a heavy price. If you want a perfectly safe existence, like an animal in a zoo - keep giving more power to the federal government. If you think I'm nuts, and that what I fear can't happen in this day and age - that's your first warning sign that you're ripe to become a "subject" rather than a "citizen".
First secure our borders. Then round up the illegals. Then do a 100% check on all cargo containers. Then put predator drone electronics into planes to prevent their flying into buildings. Then we will not need a brave new world.
Wise Old Owl | Tuesday, August 28, 2007 | 10:30 AMDuh?! Your U.S. Passport is a "national i.d." and ALWAYS has been! Besides, since when do states get to pick and chose which laws they violate? That's unbelievable! This important law has been put in place, with the intent of protecting American citizens. Having first hand knowledge of a foreign national who altered his name to illegally enter the U.S. through the VISA Waiver system, as he lied on his papers, to cause further harm and damages to an innocent American family, I wholeheartedly support this law. At the same time, I must say, we as Americans have a duty & obligation to ensure that corrupt politicians are not able to violate its intent to protect citizens or abuse it to cause harm to law-abiding citizens. It can also be used to help to identify illegal aliens who have violated U.S. laws by entering the U.S. from the onset, or to prevent the entrance of inadmissible aliens who are intent on causing harm to U.S. citizens. I have no problem with law-abiding people entering our country with good intentions, but the majority of Americans DO INDEED have a serious problem with those who act with complete disregard for our laws and national security from the onset. The Real I.D. Law can and should be used as a protective tool to ensure U.S. citizen's safety, with compliance, cooperation and citizen oversight to ensure it is.
Laurie | Tuesday, August 28, 2007 | 10:07 AMI much prefer this law and sanctions than the one's the Fed's have mandated over the years
21 to consume legal beverages
18 to smoke
an abortion at any age
gas taxes going to mass transit
The solution here is for the Feds to stop any contributions to safety in states that don't comply
He said: "I don't believe in the Easter Bunny or Silver Bullets, and don't believe in REAL ID." The simple truth is if REAL ID had been around before 911, all it would have meant is that the terrorists would have had REAL IDs and not normal driver's licenses. And when REAL ID is forged (and it will), they will continue to push more invasive measures. Identification only works in limited areas, and you can only push to have a reasonable level of it. Beyond that, you get rapidly diminishing security benefits at the expense of rapidly diminishing freedom.
Easter Bunny | Tuesday, August 28, 2007 | 09:46 AMIs Michael Chertoff going to require that people who do have a drivers license to put out money they can ill afford to get a passport in order to enjoy the state parks? In most states (at least the ones in which I have lived), an individual who does not drive can get a state ID card. It does not give them permission to drive; it is used only for identification. And, it does have a picture of the individual. My mother, who could no longer drive, had one in Texas.
Jo Ann | Tuesday, August 28, 2007 | 08:28 AMThis is the beginning of a national identity card. Whether it be a drivers license or a passport. A federally recognized identification is the start. Yes, they can enforce it within the federal realm but I promise you it will just be a matter of time before they expand the scope of the identification requirements. The speed of the implementation will be a function of terrorist and security incidents within the borders of the US.
M. King | Tuesday, August 28, 2007 | 07:08 AMNorth American Union is going to get ya!
Join Americans for Legal Immigration against the NAU and the Real ID.
www.alipac.us
CheshireCat | Tuesday, August 28, 2007 | 04:53 AMWe Americans are getting tired of the Federal Goverment threaten everybody. They need to have Air Marshall on the Planes so a tragedy like 911 won't happen again. Real ID is not going to stop terrorist. I don't even think that Illegals immigrants are terrorist, the majority of them come to America to WORK.
The problem is that lately we fault illegals for everything, when in reality we as a Country have made anemies with other Countries. We need to stop policing other Countries and concentrate on our own.
Rob | Monday, August 27, 2007 | 07:55 PMAs a conservative, I'm appalled at the Republicans pushing this REAL ID business.
Instead of asking citizens "What do you have to hide?"--we should be monitoring the government and asking it's members "Why do you want so much power?"
The reality of it is that the burden of proof lies with promoters of unprecedented measures like national id (something the writers of the Constitution would have abhorred).
Freedoms are lost in our theory/philosophy long before they are lost in practice. I encourage you to look down the road a little further.
Instead of asking citizens "What do you have to hide?"--we should be monitoring the government and asking it's members "Why do you want so much power?"
Surely we can think through ways to fight illegal immigration and terror without:
1. A massive increase in government power: If it were not such an increase, there would be no push for this change...
2. A continued undermining of federalism: Federalism is a great idea who time to return has come. It is a Constitutional ideal we should pursue.
3. An undermining of the 4th amendment: My person should be secure from searches and seizures.
If, indeed, biometrics is used someday, the government will have seized incredible personal information of innocent people. Where does this information go? Who will have access to it? Why shouldn't I consider this information "mine" and not the governments?
This measure is not really voluntary because REAL ID would control one's access to banking and travel. The individual will have to have ongoing "permission" to access his own hard-earned money.
4. An increased ability to track Americans in real-time: The ease of real-time surveillance will be immeasurable advanced.
5. An erosion of the presumption of innocence: Is the individual--in his daily life--"innocent-until-proven guilty" or "suspect-until-properly-identified?"
6. A radically increased ability to enforce arbitrary (future) rules: Do we really believe politicians will resist using such an infrastructure that makes regulation enforcement and addition so easy?
The so-called "minimum standards" will increase--along with a certain increase in uses for the card.
7. Instant federal approval on whether you and I can earn money. The "employee verification" system in the defunct immigration bill was tied to REAL ID. This is an incredible power over an American. This aspect of immigration enforcement is sure to raise its head again.
I'm all for stemming the tide of illegal immigration. But I don't want to throw our freedoms into the dump to do it.
It's ironic that the so-called conservatives are pushing for REAL ID. These "conservatives" should quit talking about their belief in "limited government."
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Allan Holmes on what's happening and what's being discussed in the world of federal information technology.
feed