Homeland Security proposes delayed Real ID rollout | Tech news blog - CNET News.com

The debate will continue to rage, but the fundamental need for security and identification of people who live in the United States has not changed. The ACLU and privacy advocates will always oppose any ID program. So will the immigration (legal or otherwise) advocates. This effort wisely, recommended by the 9/11 Commission, should be implemented as soon as feasible. I find no compelling argument from the opponents.

I think the time has come for a national ID card. I see no harm in the information that it's proposed to contain. Identification of persons, with that ID having been verified by an authorized agency of government, is a valid need in any modern society, particularly one that is under attack and in a war with Radical Islamic terrorists who have shown themselves willing and able to kill thousands of us.

"Arguably the biggest change in the final rule is the timeline. States will generally have a larger chunk of time, broken into "milestones," to become compliant with the new standards. Earlier in the planning process, Homeland Security had envisioned requiring the IDs to be in place starting on May 11, 2008--and no later than 2013--unless states had applied for an extension.

The final rule dictates that by the end of 2009, states will have to complete certain checks on all residents who apply for driver's licenses, such as verifying against Homeland Security databases that the cardholders have legal immigration status and ensuring that the Social Security number provided matches with Social Security Administration records. States will also have to conduct background checks on motor vehicles employees "to ensure licenses are not issued by corrupt insiders."

By May 11, 2011, states are expected to have methods in place to verify that the identity documents provided by driver's license applicants, such as birth certificates, are valid. They'll also be expected to start issuing Real ID-compliant licenses by then, if not sooner.

By Dec. 1, 2014, all Americans under the age of 50 will be expected to present Real ID-compliant licenses when boarding airplanes and entering federal buildings. Exactly three years later, all Americans, regardless of age, will have to meet those requirements."

Homeland Security proposes delayed Real ID rollout Tech news blog - CNET News.com

Spitzer Drops His Driver’s License Plan - New York Times

Governor Spitzer has conceded that his drivers license plan for illegal aliens/immigrants is going nowhere, despite the endorsement of the NY Times and other liberal groups. The good news is that he wisely scuttled the plan. The other good news is that while the proposal was on the table, Americans had a good look at what the Democrats believe about illegals and, in particular, what Mrs. Clinton had to say as she scurried around the issue.

The bad news is that this Congress and this President cannot accept the will of the people when it comes to solving the problem of illegal aliens. Is it any wonder that their approval ratings are dismal?

My earlier views on this license for illegals issue are here:

What Part of ‘Illegal’ Don’t You Understand? - New York Times

Mr. Downes' rant about the word illegal as it applies to those living in this country illegally is an absurdity. Illegal aliens is a perfectly correct description of those who are in this country and have broken our laws to be here. I suppose its helpful to be exposed to all the views about this immense problem. But most Americans , Mr. Downes excluded, seem to understand the reality that we have not enforced our immigration laws nor secured our borders. Shame on us, but the 'illegals' are still illegal.

There is much debate about the problem and what to do about it, but there should be little about the descriptive adjective applied to those who have not followed our rules.

I can sympathize with the plight we and the millions of illegals face, and I understand all the arguments about amnesty, economic impacts, justice, fairness, etc., ad nauseam.

Mr. Downes would have us believe there is something sinister and nasty about the word. It does not 'pollute the debate' as he alleges. Words have meaning and illegal aliens is a proper use of the language.

Mr. Downes suggests no better descriptor or a solution to the problem. His rant is foolish and silly.

New York's Fight Over Drivers Licenses

Update: 10/30/07; NY Times editorial today

Spitzer has reversed course on his plan for drivers licenses to illegal aliens. Smart move, Governor. NY Times castigates him as being weak.


Spitzer's plan to provide NY drivers licenses to illegals is a bad idea and the Times justification of it is worse. Driving is a privilege. Of course we want safe drivers, but providing a license to people who live in NY, or anywhere else, illegally is bad public policy that flies in the face of the rule of law. Such privileges only encourage illegals to remain illegal. Insurance companies should not provide insurance to illegals. No-fault coverage will cover those people injured or sustaining damage by illegals.

"In this case, Mr. Spitzer is trying to make certain there is a safe driver behind the wheel of every car. That is no small matter. More than 40,000 people die in car crashes in the United States every year, more than 3,000 of them in New York State.

To help lower that toll, Mr. Spitzer recently announced that New York would join eight other states that do not require licensed drivers to prove that they are in the country legally. Instead, prospective drivers will need to prove exactly who they are, that they can drive safely, that they have car insurance, and that they live in New York State.

Critics of Mr. Spitzer’s plan are trying to paint it as a threat to national security. But as the governor outlined in a speech on Friday, there are important ways in which the opposite is true. His plan would give faces and addresses to many of the one million people who are not here legally, who live in the shadows. It would also make it vastly more difficult for someone to get more than one license. Richard Clarke, an adviser under the last four presidents, mostly on national security issues, has said that making driver’s licenses available to immigrants regardless of their legal status would promote security because “it is far preferable for the state to know who is living in it and driving on its roads.""

Immigration Malpractice - New York Times

Immigration Malpractice - New York Times

If the Times has its facts right, this is one more example of why our government could not be trusted to to the right thing on immigration matters...and another good reason for dumping the immigration bill last week. If the government badly screws up legal immigration, how can we trust them to do well with illegals?

The remedy: tight border security first with fences if necessary; implement legal immigration fairly and effectively; then take steps to deal with illegals already here. Stern measures with employers and 'no benefits' for illegals should be the approach, including a fool-proof identification card or system for those who are here legally. Catch and deport should be the MO. It may seem harsh, but without stern measures, the problem will never be solved. Unfortunately, some Americans don't believe illegals are a problem for this nation. This attitude speaks volumes about their values concerning this country.

Immigration Strategy Momentum

The immigration issue has people energized, for sure. Now, the task will be to hold and exploit that energy for real reform. I fear that will be difficult because, led by our Vermont Senator Leahy, the Democrats will try to focus our and the media's attention on the "bad" Bushies. They are doing this by issuing subpoenas for White House personnel to testify. Bush has rejected them (appropriately), but all this is a lead-in for the 2008 campaign to make the present administration look bad.

The immigration strategy must be to target the leadership in the House, Senate and the White House. a critical supporting approach will be to target local officials to pass and enforce local laws AND turn over the illegals detained or arrested locally to immigration authorities. In other words, work hard locally to 'flood' the system, while continuing to demand that Homeland Security do something about them.

In Vermont we have an immigration issue on a scale that is minuscule compared to that in southern California. Here, dairy farmers are hiring immigrants, some legal, some illegal, because 'these are jobs locals won't take.' There's sympathy for the farmers' plight because dairy in Vermont struggles to survive, although with the present high milk prices, they are financially better off than they've been for a while. There's no backlash against the illegals.

Another key strategy should be to insure there's a grass-roots effort to force the immigration issue as one of the top 2-3 in the 2008 Presidential and Congressional campaigns. If the public is truly fired up about the issue, keeping it in the media and public eye is critical. No politician should be let off the hook for this, nor should the Bushies who must enforce present laws.

Activists deservedly should have a moment of basking in their present success, but a great deal more work will be required to keep Washington constructively engaged with the issue.

ABC News: OPINION: Gingrich Blasts Immigration Bill

ABC News: OPINION: Gingrich Blasts Immigration Bill

This opinion piece by Rick Tyler, Newt Gingrich's PR guy, is well worth the read to understand the uproar about the immigration bill now in the Senate. After listening and watching the talking heads and giving this some serious thought, I think the immigration bill, based on what I know of it, is severely flawed and should not become law. Bush, McCain and others supporting it are wrong on this issue. Here's Newt's recent ad arguing against the Senate bill supported by McCain, Kennedy, et al.

I find myself on the side of the argument that the borders must be controlled by all means possible. It's wrong that 12+ million illegals are here and a very sad commentary about our government's inability and unwillingness to control the borders for the past two decades, particularly the border with Mexico. I have driven along parts of that desert wasteland and understand the enormous difficulty in closing it to illegals. Nevertheless, it must be done before any action is taken to provide 'amnesty' for those who are here illegally.

Rather than some omnibus, take-care-of-everything-bill now, let's have a 2 step process. Step 1: Close the borders ASAP to keep more illegals out (we'll never keep them all out); Step 2: deal with the illegals already here after the border is secured by a real fence or some other means to keep them out, perhaps not by deporting them, but by NEVER granting them legal status, unless they return to their home country and apply from there for legal immigrant entry, for work or permanent residency. That's a difficult task, but if our laws are to mean anything, we should not allow them legal status without rigorous requirements. They should have no path to citizenship or permanent without gaining legal status. Amnesty is a failed solution and will only encourage more illegals to come as was the case after 1986.