[Toshi]

tacked on to the back of a defense/iraq spending bill were riders that enact the RealID program and give the Homeland Security department freedom to rape, murder, extort, and generally disregard any laws they deem fit in order to serve their ill defined purpose.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/05/10/national/w155857D84.DTL

States are threatening to challenge in court and even disobey new orders from Congress to start issuing more uniform driver's licenses and verify the citizenship or legal status of people getting them.

...

All but one of the 19 hijackers in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks had some form of U.S. identification, some of it fraudulent, the Sept. 11 Commission found. The commission recommended the federal government set standards for birth certificates and other identification documents, including driver's licenses.

so why do we need a national id? would it have stopped 9/11 or oklahoma city? no.

part 2, on how the spending bill contained another rider that gives DHS carte blanche: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050509-4886.html

H.R. 418 [the Real ID Act of 2005] would provide additional waiver authority over laws that might impede the expeditious construction of barriers and roads along the border. H.R. 418 would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive any and all laws that he determines necessary, in his sole discretion, to ensure the expeditious construction of barriers and roads under IIRIRA § 102...

Section 102 of H.R. 418 would amend the current provision to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive any law upon determining that a waiver is necessary for the expeditious construction of the border barriers. Additionally, it would prohibit judicial review of a waiver decision or action by the Secretary and bar judicially ordered compensation or injunction or other remedy for damages alleged to result from any such decision or action.

so now DHS will be above the law and above the courts. N8, please just try to spin this as a good thing for democracy or for the nation. i seriously am going to emigrate when i get the chance if this keeps up.

 

[reflux]

If only we had something that explicitly stated the basic rights that an American citizen is entitled to...

 

[Changleen]

If only we had something that explicitly stated the basic rights that an American citizen is entitled to...

You're good.

 

[Changleen]

Good post from GNN:

People who were so up in arms about the Patriot Act 2 haven’t (or can’t) seemed to notice that the intelligence reform bill is the Patriot Act 2 renamed with more **** added to it. It says a lot about what a ****ed place this country is when all that was needed to pass the PA2 and silence much of the dissent against it was to rename it.

It should also be noted that within the last year, the Supreme Court has ruled that: 1) the cops can arrest you for not giving them your name/id on demand. If they demand your name, and you ask if you are under arrest in reply so you can invoke miranda, they can arrest you. That means your 4th and 5th amendment rights are gone when dealing with the police. (ruling was 5-4) And 2) that when arresting you the police don’t have to tell you what they are arresting you for. In other words they can arrest you and “find” something to have arrested you for later. That gives the police a nice way to plant evidence on people while re-enforcing the removal of 4th and 5th amendment rights and gutting the 6th as well. (ruling was 8-0 Rehenquist didn’t rule on this).

A de-facto national id card. Police being able to demand your papers and name and being able to arrest you for not giving them when they tell you to. Police being able to arrest you with no informing of charges being arrested for.

It’s a ****ing police state like the USSR. Thanks to the intel bill there will even be a KGB (NID squad) . This does nothing to make anyone safer and removes almost every protection guaranteed under the 4th 5th and 6th amendments.

Yet again because of it’s “someone else protect me, I won’t do it for myself” attitude innocent people are punished and will be treated like criminals because the law enforcment agencies failed to stop criminals from showing how inept the agencies are. Giving these agencies that failed to do their jobs, the agencies that failed the public more money and power while adding needless bureaucracy is somehow supposed to remedy this.

If more people would stop relying on the government to protect them and keep America safe like they did on 9/11, and take the task upon themselves where it belongs, then those of us who wish to be law abiding citizens while being able to protect ourselves might have a chance to do so. Instead we get to suffer under the boot of a stifling borderline tyrant because people are lazy ****ing pussies who need to be protected from faggots and sand niggers because they are too busy trying to protect their “right” to shove their bastardization of Jesus down peoples throats.

To those Americans who support the Patriot Act 2 reform bill (98% of whom do so not having read it of course) Sic Semper Tyranus.

I clearly don't endorse the aggresive racist drivel at the end. However he seems to have a pretty good point about the constitution and religion.

Edit: Or maybe I am becoming insensitive to sarcasm.

 

[MMike]

. N8, please just try to spin this as a good thing for democracy or for the nation.

Uhhh....you want to make an omelette, you gotta break some eggs...uh...yeah.

 

[Changleen]

Section 102 of H.R. 418 would amend the current provision to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive any law upon determining that a waiver is necessary for the expeditious construction of the border barriers. Additionally, it would prohibit judicial review of a waiver decision or action by the Secretary and bar judicially ordered compensation or injunction or other remedy for damages alleged to result from any such decision or action.

That's just ****ing nuts.

 

[Ciaran]

It's things like this that depress me. How do you fight something like this? Obviously I can't take up arms and storm the white house. I can't explain to these politicians that what they are doing is wrong. The people of our country either don't care, or just don't get it. What do you do?

When they say that "Work shall set you free" or that we should do it "for the benefit of the state" then I am leaving. I don't know what else to do.

 

[Toshi]

It's things like this that depress me. How do you fight something like this? Obviously I can't take up arms and storm the white house. I can't explain to these politicians that what they are doing is wrong. The people of our country either don't care, or just don't get it. What do you do?

When they say that "Work shall set you free" or that we should do it "for the benefit of the state" then I am leaving. I don't know what else to do.

and the sick part is that it passed the senate 100-0. 100-0. yes. that means all the senate democrats voted for it, too. if they're so worried about being "kerry-ed" on the campaign trail for voting against a "support the troops" bill (that just so happens to have all this insiduous baggage) that they sit back and do nothing then they're just as guilty as the neocons and other republican sheeple.

 

[Zark]

This is soooo bad. Emigrating is sounding better all the time. My parents are already looking at where in Mexico they want to live....

 

[N8 v2.0]

This is soooo bad. Emigrating is sounding better all the time. My parents are already looking at where in Mexico they want to live....

Why wait? Move NOW!

 

[Zark]

Why wait? Move NOW!

Shouldn't you be on the campaign trail with Hillary right now?

 

[Changleen]

Why wait? Move NOW!

Do you have any standards whatsoever?

 

[reflux]

Someone please help me, I'm having trouble trying to figure this out: who benefits from the passing of this and why?

 

[Zark]

Do you (N8) have any standards whatsoever?

Appearantly not if the eroding of democracy doesn't bother him enough to address Toshi's question.

 

[Changleen]

I think N8 should explain what it is he loves about America.

Come on N8, what makes the US great?

 

[Toshi]

I think N8 should explain what it is he loves about America.

Come on N8, what makes the US great?

i think what makes the US great is that people get angry about these issues. unfortunately the tide seems to be against us, and the pendulum is swinging over to the fascist side with alarming rapidity...

(i :love: mixed metaphors.)

 

[Changleen]

Someone please help me, I'm having trouble trying to figure this out: who benefits from the passing of this and why?

In reality? Nobody. In the short term security services might feel that it 'facilitates' them doing their jobs. In the long term it's just another brick in the wall of reasons why they are needed at all.

 

[Transcend]

So glad I moved home to Canada. THis new bill is absurd, i was reading up on it right after it passed.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Uhhh....you want to make an omelette, you gotta break some eggs...uh...yeah.

uh! life is too short (for dubya)not to go big... (W) gotta go big!!! huh.. yeah.. heh.. huh.. awesome!!... look beavis, naked chicks... huh uh.. heh.. yeah..

 

[Damn True]

National Security aspect aside because I honestly don't understand the full effect of this thing, and neither do any of the rest of you.

I think a standardization of identifaction law is a good idea. As of right now, you can purchase a forged CA drivers license or Social Security card in Juarez Mexico (Im sure you can do it elsewhere in the world as well). There are 14 US states that will issue you another license and all you have to do is surrender that forged CA license and they will give you a legit one for that state.

The result of this is that an illegal immigrant can gain access to services within the United States that they are not paying taxes to support. In a time when budgets are strained to their limits on the local, state and federal level I don't think its particularly smart to give away services to people that aren't paying into the system.

 

[Toshi]

National Security aspect aside because I honestly don't understand the full effect of this thing, and neither do any of the rest of you.

true, but i read the writings of people smarter than me who are paid to think about such issues:

http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0402.html#6

Identification and profiling don't provide very good security, and they do so at an enormous cost. Dropping ID checks completely, and engaging in random screening where appropriate, is a far better security trade-off. People who know they're being watched, and that their innocent actions can result in police scrutiny, are people who become scared to step out of line. They know that they can be put on a "bad list" at any time. People living in this kind of society are not free, despite any illusionary security they receive. It's contrary to all the ideals that went into founding the United States.

True, please spin the provision that DHS can break any and all laws as they see fit.

 

[Damn True]

True, please spin the provision that DHS can break any and all laws as they see fit.

I don't know for certain that is the case (I'm a lot of things but not a lawyer) but if it is as insidious a situation as you seem to think it is than I am by no means for it.

 

[Changleen]

I don't know for certain that is the case (I'm a lot of things but not a lawyer) but if it is as insidious a situation as you seem to think it is than I am by no means for it.

Section 102 of H.R. 418 would amend the current provision to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive any law upon determining that a waiver is necessary for the expeditious construction of the border barriers. Additionally, it would prohibit judicial review of a waiver decision or action by the Secretary and bar judicially ordered compensation or injunction or other remedy for damages alleged to result from any such decision or action.

It's pretty clear. I'm glad you agree it's wrong.

 

[Damn True]

I wonder if they mean "border barriers" in a physical sense as in an actual wall along our southern border, or is that a figurative statement refering to laws designed to curb illegal immigration through all conduits?

 

[Changleen]

I wonder if they mean "border barriers" in a physical sense as in an actual wall along our southern border, or is that a figurative statement refering to laws designed to curb illegal immigration through all conduits?

They mean in order to secure your borders. You just went into Iraq to secure your borders, so it's a pretty broad definition. It can apply just as well internally as internationally. It's a carte blanche.

 

[Toshi]

They mean in order to secure your borders. You just went into Iraq to secure your borders, so it's a pretty broad definition. It can apply just as well internally as internationally. It's a carte blanche.

and even if it were construed to be, say, just along the mexican border, it still is just as wrong. law enforcement should not be above the law and judicial review/recompense. period.

 

[valve bouncer]

I can't understand this whole illegal immigration crap. All economic immigration whether legal or illegal happens because the receiving country needs it. The US/Canada border must be the most open border in the whole world, as I understand some towns actually straddle the border, half is one side, cross the street you're in another. Why isn't there streams of Canadians crossing the Rio Yukon or whatever? If the US were really serious about stopping illegal immigration they'd do all they could to take Mexico to 1st world status. But in reality the US needs this pool of cheap workers at their border to keep their economy going. In effect there is this big dollar sign saying "come here" and then when they do America gets all shirty. Please embrace reality.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

thats totally messed up... but i´ve got a question about this "law" that smells too much like the "state of emergency" plans in banana republics where all rights and laws were overrided at discretion..

in the case of the US.. who would be the least authority, with enough authority to decide the waiver of personal and human rights and laws???

the president? a senator? a judge? a foot soldier?

 

[Damn True]

I can't understand this whole illegal immigration crap. All economic immigration whether legal or illegal happens because the receiving country needs it. The US/Canada border must be the most open border in the whole world, as I understand some towns actually straddle the border, half is one side, cross the street you're in another. Why isn't there streams of Canadians crossing the Rio Yukon or whatever? If the US were really serious about stopping illegal immigration they'd do all they could to take Mexico to 1st world status. But in reality the US needs this pool of cheap workers at their border to keep their economy going. In effect there is this big dollar sign saying "come here" and then when they do America gets all shirty. Please embrace reality.

I have no problem with people from Mexico entering the US. I sure as heck don't want to pick Artichokes. I've picked grapes and apricots...don't want to do that again either. We absolutely need those people for those types of jobs.
I just think it should be controlled so that the wages earned by those people are taxed appropriately. They (illegal immigrants from all countries) are here using government provided rescources which have a finite level of funding and are not paying into the system that supports said services.

That said, this law sounds a bit scary. Though I'm pretty certain that we are looking at it's most dire application. It will probably never be applied in the terms we are discussing, but the fact that it provides for the possibility of that is uncool.

 

[valve bouncer]

I have no problem with people from Mexico entering the US. I sure as heck don't want to pick Artichokes. I've picked grapes and apricots...don't want to do that again either. We absolutely need those people for those types of jobs.
I just think it should be controlled so that the wages earned by those people are taxed appropriately. They (illegal immigrants from all countries) are here using government provided rescources which have a finite level of funding and are not paying into the system that supports said services.

That said, this law sounds a bit scary. Though I'm pretty certain that we are looking at it's most dire application. It will probably never be applied in the terms we are discussing, but the fact that it provides for the possibility of that is uncool.

That's all well and good DT but you missed the point a bit. America attracts both illegal and legal immigrants. You want to stop illegal immigration then use your economic clout to bring Mexico up to developed status. It won't stop it entirely but it will sure help. However it's not in America's interest to do so. You guys absolutely need this pool of cheap labour.

 

[Damn True]

That's all well and good DT but you missed the point a bit. America attracts both illegal and legal immigrants. You want to stop illegal immigration then use your economic clout to bring Mexico up to developed status. It won't stop it entirely but it will sure help. However it's not in America's interest to do so. You guys absolutely need this pool of cheap labour.

You don't think both interests could be served by finding a way to ensure that immigrants were properly documented? Could we not only have the much needed unskilled labor pool, and ensure the incomes to those people would be taxed appropriately so that their impact on public schools and healthcare would be at least partially subsidised with tax revenue from them?

Like I said, I have no problem with them being here. I just object to them earning $$ here that goes back to another country while at the same time utilising public services without taxation.

 

[Changleen]

You don't think both interests could be served by finding a way to ensure that immigrants were properly documented? Could we not only have the much needed unskilled labor pool, and ensure the incomes to those people would be taxed appropriately so that their impact on public schools and healthcare would be at least partially subsidised with tax revenue from them?

Like I said, I have no problem with them being here. I just object to them earning $$ here that goes back to another country while at the same time utilising public services without taxation.

One world, dude.