FAQ: How Real ID will affect you [U.S.]

I heard recently that, after August of this year, You are required to have a passport or federal ID to leave the country for any reason. Birth certificate and SSCard won't do it.

Maybe we'll all get micro chip installed on our hands to id us too

 

Congress Pushes National ID

http://kgmb9.com/kgmb/display.cfm?storyID=4556



STANDARDIZING DRIVER'S LICENSES

May 3, 2005


There's a great deal of variation and too much variation if our security is going to depend on who gets driver's licenses and whether they're lawfully in the United States or not. So, some federal minimum standards that would allow the states to keep issuing licenses-- they're not going to be taken over by the federal government, there's just going to be some basic rules that states have to follow-- is common sense.




Stopping terrorists
GWEN IFILL: Assuming that this is legislation which is aimed at security issues, as you say, as well as at immigration problems or loopholes in immigration, would the bill as it is now being contemplated for final passage in Congress, would it have stopped the 19 hijackers on 9/11?

MARK KRIKORIAN: It would have in fact prevented several of them from getting ID's. Two of them got state driver's licenses or non-driver ID's from DMV's after....

GWEN IFILL: But were they not legal?

JEANNE BUTTERFIELD: They were all legal.

MARK KRIKORIAN: Excuse me. After their visas expired they became illegal aliens. Two of them got driver's licenses after that process. And one of the important provisions of this law is requiring driver's licenses for temporary visitors -- students and what have you -- to expire when their permission to be here expires. And that's what would have prevented at least two of the 9/11 hijackers from boarding the planes.


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june05/licenses_5-3.html

 

WiredNews article

I think that everyone can agree that this is not the way the government should do business (putting a totally un-related bill that couldn't/wouldn't have passed on its' own into a budget appropriations bill that absolutely had to be passed - if for no other reason than to increase the death benefits for our military personnel who are sacrificing their lives every day over there).

I would also like to note that this particular article doesn't even touch upon Section 102 of this same bill:

"(2) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court, administrative agency, or other entity shall have jurisdiction--

`(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or

`(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.'."

which - in case you haven't realized it yet - means that there's absolutely no legal recourse to anything that HomeLand Security inflicts on an individual - be it by accident or ON PURPOSE!

"Not good!" doesn't even begin to cover what's going on here. Pete

 

I agree; the means in which they slipped this garbage under the rug is despicable. I haven't really formed and opinion on the Real ID yet, that may have be beneficial in some ways, but this Section 102 is scary. Unlimited power with no legal consequence is a bad mixture, regardless of how good the intentions may be.

 

Maybe we can add an amendment that will allow Bush to be elected for another 8yrs while were at it ... this guy is one of the top 3 worst president's in U.S. history, and has taken more rights from you than was ever gained by fighting any war (including the revolution).

Terrorism has been used (and possibly orchestrated) as an excuse to seize total power by the government - you have a better chance of dying of a car-wreck, heart-attack, Cancer, Swimming, yes even shark attacks & bee stings than you do of dying in a terrorist attack.

You take your chances everyday you step outside your doorway - why not accept it as a chance you take in life ... why do you suddenly have to account for every move you make and lose most of your right's?

Where is the billion dollar effort against Cancer? ... the midnight congressional sessions? ... to try and stop the World's #1 killer - no where to be seen or even looming on the horizon.

This is as old of a trick as time itself - first comes excuse ... then comes action - A time honored tradition practiced by dictators to schoolyard bully's and perfected by Hitler and now Bush.

I didn't vote for this communist in either election ... and those that did are getting what they deserve.

 

I realize with the nature of this article....many side discussions can occur. Having said that....I'd like to ask that we focus on the Privacy side as much as possible and leave personal opinions concerning Presidents\Politics for another venue Please.

 

With Section 102 in place, a persons home and posessions could be wiretaped and monitored indefinitly based upon any suspition of terrorist activities. Without warning homes could be torn apart on suspition, cars bugged, followed around, it seems anything is possible.
Another troubling aspect is that suspition is not defined. Am I a suspect if I was to make three trips to the post office in a day? And if someone is wrongly suspected, any damage done to the home, lost jobs, divorce, embarassing survalance video floating around the net, all goes uncompensated for with nobody liable. There is potential for severe privacy issues here.

This is all certainly paranoid, far-fetched, and extreme worst case, but apparently it's within the scope of the law and is entirely possible.