Family Security Matters: REAL ID = National ID

Jim Harper of the Cato Institute has written a post entitled Family Security Matters: REAL ID = National ID.

There is a lot of back and forth about REAL ID that goes like this:

"It's a National Id Card!"
"No, it's not!"
"Yes, it is!"
"Is not!"
"Is too!"
"Is not!"

But Harper's post reminds us that the argument ends up on "Is too!"

Governor signs bill to keep Arizona out of `Real ID'

Arizona stands against the REAL ID Act: For more, go here.

Missouri also joins the fray.

Anyone in Washington listening?

What Say Ye, Arizona?

State of Arizona
House of Representatives
Forty-eighth Legislature
Second Regular Session
2008


HOUSE BILL 2677



AN ACT

AMENDING TITLE 28, CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 2, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTION 28-336; RELATING TO THE REAL ID ACT OF 2005.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
Section 1. Title 28, chapter 2, article 2, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 28-336, to read:
28-336. REAL ID act; implementation prohibited without legislative authorization

A. THIS STATE SHALL NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REAL ID ACT OF 2005 (P.L. 109-13, DIVISION B; 119 STAT. 302) UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY AN ACT OF THE LEGISLATURE. THE DEPARTMENT SHALL NOT IMPLEMENT THE REAL ID ACT OF 2005 UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY AN ACT OF THE LEGISLATURE AND SHALL REPORT TO THE GOVERNOR AND THE LEGISLATURE ANY ATTEMPT BY AGENCIES OR AGENTS OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY TO SECURE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REAL ID ACT OF 2005 THROUGH THE OPERATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY.

B. THIS SECTION DOES NOT PROHIBIT THIS STATE FROM ESTABLISHING A STATE SECURE IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM USING APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY AND STATE DATABASES.

Sometimes standing for freedom can be simple, straightforward, and free from fanfare.

All you have to have is courage, clarity, and will--every day.

For more, go here and here. (Tucson Citizen news story.)

National Security Presidential Directive and Homeland Security Presidential Directive

I've always been a Republican because I believe in limited government, freedom of the individual, the Bill of Rights (all 10 of them--the 2nd along with the 4th...and especially the forgotten 10th), and the Constitution (the spirit and the letter).

So when Republicans morph into another big-government, big-brother party, I have to cry foul. I never would have voted for Al Gore or John Kerry, but I have to say that George Bush has been a major disappointment in several key issues. (He's been strong on several key issues as well--for which I am grateful, but he's certainly a mixed bag. The net result is disappointment.)

A key disappointment is his support for surveillance over American citizens and control structures like the national id card called The REAL ID Act.

This link also shows his misplaced obsession with biometrics and the collection of personal information of innocent citizens.

When the Republicans undermine the nature of America by these kinds of measures, I wonder why I should be a Republican.

I've heard talk about smaller government all my life from this party.

The Republicans may have slowed down the rate of growth from time to time, but I've never seen the government become smaller.

Obviously, its all talk.

I guess George Bush's conservatism is "big hat, few cattle."

Debate Looks at Immigration Laws and Citizenship

PBS has posted a debate sponsored by the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia. Robert MacNeil was the moderator. The introduction says the debate "examined the current laws dealing with immigration and the possible plans to address the twelve million illegal immigrants currently living in the U.S."

One of the participants of the debate, Vernon Briggs said:

Well, I think, ultimately, we're going to have to get a counterfeit-proof identification card of some sort to be used in -- and hopefully it will be partially the Social Security card, but it's going to have to have biometric identifiers. It's going to be a transition that will require people to have photographs.

I mean, I have in my pocket a card, a Cornell faculty card. And the back of it, it says I am required to carry that card at all times when I'm on the campus of Cornell University. Every student carries that card.

So this idea that somehow I.D. cards are a big attack on civil liberties is a pure myth. But that's what's holding it up right now.

I am always amazed at how people do not discern things that are different.

Cornell University is not the federal government. No elaboration on this point should be necessary.

In traditional, freedom-oriented thinking, the expansion of the size and power of government necessarily entails a decrease in individual liberty.

The very existence of a national id card (a biometric-plus Social Security Card or REAL ID Card) is a violation of civil liberties. America is supposed to be different. It is supposed to be a free country.

Has Mr. Briggs asked the following questions?

1. Who owns the biometrics of a person? The individual or the government?

2. Should citizens be required, by legislative force, to carry around such a card? If so, why? To be scanned at a policeman's request on a moment's notice?

3. How many applications for this technology is Mr. Briggs willing to stomach?

4. Are our rights God-given or electronically doled out by the central government?

5. If the government "needs to know" something about a citizen, shouldn't 4th Amendment issues be raised?

6. Isn't a national id card simply the obtaining of real-time and continuous permission from the federal government just to function in society? Is such "permission" a Constitutional value? Why do free people need so much permission from the government?

7. Shouldn't we reduce or eliminate the number of government "services" that require so much ID?

8. Isn't such a card a massive empowerment of government? It reduces the individual to a string of digits to be electronically manipulated and recorded by powerful politicians and bureaucrats.

9. Shouldn't the power of government be continually pushed "down the ladder" to state and local governments, thereby making communities more personal, human, and accessible? Haven't we had enough of impersonal and dehumanizing expansion of government?

For more on this debate, go here.