Yet Again with the National ID
Fresh from their defeat in forcing national identity papers on us with REAL ID, the feds are trying once more. Their plea this time isn’t terrorism but immigration—though they’re pretty much the same, according to the State.
Introduced in 2005 to combat the waves of terrorists thronging our shores, REAL ID was supposed to thwart the bad guys by transforming our drivers’ licenses into a national ID card. We’d have submitted this card on demand to government’s agents—as do the victims in totalitarian regimes. Never mind that “almost no empirical research has been undertaken to clearly establish how identity tokens can be used as a means of preventing terrorism,” according to Privacy International, or that “terrorists have traditionally moved across borders using tourist visas,” unless they “are equipped with legitimate identification cards.” The 9/11 hijackers and the Madrid bombers, respectively, provide two recent examples.
Any Pretext Whatsoever
Governments itch to tag their subjects like so many cattle, on any pretext whatsoever. Ours thought it had a dandy excuse in the attacks of 9/11, and who can blame it? Many Americans would eagerly sell their few remaining liberties so long as a politician assured them that said sale secured the homeland. Ergo, the feds invented a bogus link between terrorism and America’s freedom from a national ID. They swore they’d prevent another 9/11 so long as we followed orders to carry “enhanced” drivers’ licenses.
Surprisingly, rebellion bloomed—and this among states that have supinely obeyed any number of anti-constitutional decrees since 1865. Fifteen passed legislation prohibiting their DMVs from turning licenses into a de facto national ID; another ten officially denounced REAL ID.
No matter: The feds slapped an alias on their failed legislation—PASS ID—and reintroduced it. But in case such cosmetics can’t con us, a couple of senators are aiming at the same goal via another American bugaboo: immigration.
Increased Workplace Patrols
Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) propose to “reform” yet again the feds’ cruel and unconstitutional policies on immigration. Their national ID card piggybacks on Social Security cards rather than drivers’ licenses.
“The plan calls for a big increase in immigration agents patrolling workplaces,” the New York Times reported. The Bush administration already tried such raids; their inhumanity devastated whole towns, not just immigrants, and Obama’s government supposedly discontinued them. But senators seldom boast an enviable learning curve. Graham and Schumer would also “require all workers, including legal immigrants and American citizens, to present a tamper-proof”—that is, biometric—“Social Security card when they apply for jobs.”
In propaganda the Washington Post obligingly published, the senators wrote, “A tamper-proof ID system would dramatically decrease illegal immigration, experts have said, and would reduce the government revenue lost when employers and workers here illegally fail to pay taxes.” But, “there’s no such thing as a foolproof ID system,” as experts have also said. And “reducing lost government revenue” as a reason for national ID adds insult to injury. We should pack papers so the government can keep more of what it loots from us?
The senators also promise that though “we would require all U.S. citizens and legal immigrants who want jobs to obtain a high-tech, fraud-proof Social Security card,” we’re safe from bureaucratic prying because “no government database would house everyone’s information.” If you believe that, you no doubt believe as well that these politicians have only our best interests at heart, have studied rather than exploited this topic, and are competent to decide for us who our future neighbors, friends, and relatives will be.
Certainly, Graham and Schumer don’t have immigrants’ best interests at heart. Indeed, whether immigrants can live here is determined solely by whether we can use them to “ensur[e] America’s future economic prosperity.” Ergo, the senators’ “legislation would award green cards to immigrants who receive a Ph.D. or master’s degree in science, technology, engineering or math from a U.S. university. It makes no sense to educate the world’s future inventors and entrepreneurs and then force them to leave when they are able to contribute to our economy.”
Nationalist Agenda
Forget about those hungry, tired, and poor yearning to breathe free; the persecuted; and the tortured. If you can’t advance politicians’ nationalistic agendas, you won’t find a toe-hold here.
The senators aren’t content to menace only immigrants; they also threaten and penalize Americans who, unlike themselves, are productive: “Prospective employers would be responsible for swiping the [national ID] cards through a machine”—and who pays for the gizmo?—“to confirm a person’s identity and immigration status. Employers who refused to swipe the card or who otherwise knowingly hired unauthorized workers would face stiff fines and, for repeat offenses, prison sentences.”
Our rulers have spent the last 150 years ginning up fear of immigrants, pitting established Americans against newcomers, contriving a hobgoblin from which they squawk about rescuing us. They’ve succeeded so well that modern Americans happily don chains so long as it means immigrants wear them, too. National ID, raids on offices and factories, a wall on our southern border: Nothing is too dictatorial when it comes to controlling migration.
Schumer and Graham are betting Americans’ fear of immigrants outweighs their love of liberty. Tragically, that looks like a winning wager.
Pingback by Perspective — The Government Turns on Goldman Sachs | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty on 30 June 2010:
[...] Congress keeps trying to create a national ID, despite repeated rejections. Now the politicians are trying to smuggle it in via immigration. Becky Akers won’t let them past Customs. [...]
Comment by Ian on 5 July 2010:
Becky Akers for President. Your writing should be read by anyone with the capacity to embrace such beautiful words. Consider me a fan.
Comment by Mark D Hughes on 5 July 2010:
Becky, a wonderfully “radical” (and inspirational) article. Keep them coming.
Comment by John George on 6 July 2010:
Wouldn’t the national id card limit/eliminate voter fraud?
Would as many politicians pander to the illegals if they were not a vote?
Comment by John Galt on 6 July 2010:
I don’t really have a comment about this article because I haven’t read it yet. I just thought I’d comment now about something else that is too prevalent, and annoying. And that is THAT FREAKIN POPUP THAT WANTS ME TO SUBSCRIBE! If you want me to subscribe to your newsletter, how about you provide quality content, and DON’T ANNOY YOUR USERS! Having that popup is akin to having your entire site coded in flash. Now that I’ve vented, it’s time to close your website. I came here through a link and thought this might be a good post to read. I will never know, now, because I’m not staying on any site that practices bad web manners like that popup. Have a nice day, and I will be sure to tell everyone I know not to come to your site.
Comment by kimo on 28 July 2010:
It does not matter anymore people, you are all living in a big prison, FACT not fiction, the more you learn, the more you will hang your head in disgust.
Comment by Anonymous on 29 July 2010:
Fantastic summary of the pertinent points concerningthis nefarious scheme. The “state” always seems determined to eventually require ‘ze papers’ doesn’t it. LynnAB
Comment by stevador39 on 1 August 2010:
How is a National ID different from a drivers license, or a social security card? The only dangers your article points out is that a National ID would tend to limit illegal immigration. If you are interested in the poor huddled masses, look at the Americans who have lost their jobs, homes, their retirements and their opportunity for concern from their fellow citizens.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 5 August 2010:
This would be more accurately titled: “Another Manifesto by the Open Boarders Apologist.”
I have explained to Ms Akers repeatedly that the Constitution specifically gives Congress power over Naturalization. In fact the ruling on SB 1070 in Arizona reinforced this fact yet again. I know facts are inconvenient but ethics demands we actually incorporate them into our opinions no matter how intense the emotion of how fervently we wish they were not true.
I have explained that even if the Constitution did not give Congress this power specifically it vests Congress with the power to make Federal Law. Since no aspect of the Constitution or Bill of Rights inhibits the power of Congress to control immigration or “Freedom of Movement” from other nations in the way it prohibits laws infringing on freedom of religion, freedom of speech, right to bear arms, etc.
International Law defines the sovereign rights of a nation to include controlling its boarders. People entering your nation without consent is called an “invasion” regardless of if they are armed or not.
Ms Akers criticizes the government “looting” taxes without discussing that many of these tax dollars end up in the pockets of the illegal aliens she supports or explaining why we should have to pay to support the infrastructure they exploit when the nation they fled refuses to reimburse us for servicing the needs of their citizens?
Ms Akers laments the US educating children only to deport them once they have achieved an advanced degree. What percentage of children from illegal aliens achieve this lofty goal especially when compared to the percentage that end up violating the law and sucking up even more tax dollars going through our legal and penal systems? No mention of that?
Ms. Akers offers that it doesn’t make sense to educate and export people with advanced degrees without understanding that this is the acorn from which American ideals grow in nations that have been repressed for centuries. Third world countries must be forced to confront their societal, economic, and governmental failures rather than using the US as a safety value where they can export dissidents and excess population. We do more to help the billions that “yearn to breathe free” by educating them so they can throw off the yoke of tyranny the way our forefathers did.
Ms. Akers also fails to address the adverse effect of illegal immigration on the “hungry, tired, and poor” that have demonstrated their dedication to this country by following our laws by waiting courteously at the door to be invited to join us whereas the seminal act for illegal aliens is violating US laws and sovereignty.
If Ms. Akers returned home to an uninvited stranger in her house with unknown motives her first impulse would be to call the police not ask him to rent a room. If she believe she has the right to determine who should and should not be allowed to cross her threshold then offering that Americans do not have this same right to determine who we will allow to join us is hypocritical.
Yet more fear mongering about fascism in an attempt to make an entirely indigestible stance more palatable rather than appealing to fact and logic.
“A lie told often enough become the truth.” – Lenin
Comment by John Anello on 5 August 2010:
Great arguments as usual JMF,
I was disappointed to see SB 1070 struck down by a tyrant in a black robe. I believe the case is destined to go higher and the will of the people will ultimately prevail over the faulty legal reasoning of elitist judges who care about nothing but advancing their agenda.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 6 August 2010:
John,
I appreciate the accolade but I can’t agree with your assessment of Judge Bolton’s ruling for the same reasons I didn’t support Prop 187 in California.
Most of 1070 went into effect including the prohibition of sanctuary cities and soliciting day laborers. The only parts Bolton blocked related directly with Art 1-Sec 8 and the potential difficulties it could cause in regard to foreign affairs which states are not allowed to infringe upon. I’d be quite the hypocrite if I supported this section when it suited me and attacked it when it was inconvenient. While I understand and agree with the emotion behind 1070 (as well as 187), the State of Arizona can no more have its own supplement immigration policies than its own supplemental navy even if the laws essentially echo Federal Law.
I personally think appealing is a bad idea because I think the Supremes are going to hit it harder than Bolton did so Arizona should cut their losses and take a look at the difference between 187 that got hammered in California and 209 which sailed through.
Arizona should pull down the parts of 1070 that got blocked and rewrite it so that everyone that gets arrested gets checked to determine if they are in compliance with Federal Immigration Law. This instantly kills A1S8 issues because it is subordinate to Fed law on a prima facie basis, it eliminates 14A issues because everyone goes through the same process which also puts an end to the selective enforcement issue as well.
What are the Feds going to do? Say you can’t have a law that says you need to enforce Federal Law? The ACLU and the illegal alien groups can’t argue racism if everyone is checked. It also sends a subtle FU to Bolton who said that she was worried about volume of inquiries diverting Federal resources. If she thinks giving cops the discretion to figure out who to check can be abused we’ll check everyone and see how many resources the Feds need to divert. We trust them to point guns at people but they can’t be trusted to check immigration status? Brilliant argument that. Someone should point out to Bolton that she is a judge, not an Accountant. Her job is to determine if the law passes legal muster not to determine if it is economically feasible. I’d also make her aware of the fact the failure of the Feds to dedicate adequate resources to boarder is the core problem so her logic is upside down. The whole purpose of 1070 is to get the Feds to divert resources they should have dedicated to the situation a long time ago.
Comment by jenna on 6 August 2010:
James Madison Fan, If you are going to rant so much, so continuously, so vociferously about “Open Borders” then learn how to freaking spell it. No A. Boarders are people who stay at a boarding house. Borders are lines that separate countries. Spell/grammar check is your friend. Also, learn how to self edit.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 9 August 2010:
Way to avoid the topic. Two pages of logic to address and you want to focus on an errant a?
Since we’re picking nits rather than talking like adults it is traditional to capitalize names jenna.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 9 August 2010:
That was petty of me. I apologize.
Thank you for pointing out my mistake.