Why should you care about "Real ID"?

[unixronin]

CNET reports:

President Bush is expected to sign an $82 billion military spending bill soon that will, in part, create electronically readable, federally approved ID cards for Americans.  The House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved the package -- which includes the Real ID Act -- on Thursday.

Why is this in a military spending bill?  A very good question, and one with a simple answer which CNET doesn't hesitate to point out:  "Because it's difficult for politicians to vote against money that will go to the troops in Iraq and tsunami relief."

Further down the same article, find the following observation from Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, the only consistently pro-freedom vote in Congress:

Paul has warned that the Real ID Act "establishes a national ID card" and "gives authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security to unilaterally add requirements as he sees fit."

Reading this, I could not help but wonder:  What happens to you if you're for some reason unable to meet one of the conditions the Secretary of Homeland Security feels is reasonable and appropriate as proof of identity for the purpose of obtaining a national ID card?  Suppose, for instance, that there is no birth certificate on record for you, or the record has been lost or never entered into any filing system anywhere from which you can obtain a copy.  Do you get deported?  Do you become a non-person, unable to obtain employment, use any government services, use any public transport, get medical care?

Ron Paul has this to say:

Supporters claim it is not a national ID because it is voluntary. However, any state that opts out will automatically make non-persons out of its citizens.  The citizens of that state will be unable to have any dealings with the federal government because their ID will not be accepted.  They will not be able to fly or to take a train.  In essence, in the eyes of the federal government they will cease to exist.  It is absurd to call this voluntary.

And:

It re-defines "terrorism" in broad new terms that could well include members of firearms rights and anti-abortion groups, or other such groups as determined by whoever is in power at the time.  There are no prohibitions against including such information in the database as information about a person’s exercise of First Amendment rights or about a person’s appearance on a registry of firearms owners.

And he closes his comments with:

Why are we punishing Americans by taking away their freedoms instead of making life more difficult for those who would enter our country illegally?  (Emphasis mine)

H.R. 418 does what legislation restricting firearm ownership does.  It punishes law-abiding citizens.  Criminals will ignore it.  H.R. 418 offers us a false sense of greater security at the cost of taking a gigantic step toward making America a police state.

I think Ron Paul's very valid question needs a public answer from President Bush, and when I say "an answer", I don't mean "vague, mealy-mouthed blathering about national security that uses the specter of terrorism as a bugaboo to distract attention from the fact that he hasn't actually answered the question."  I mean an ANSWER, straight out, without any euphemisms, dissembling, or jingoistic rah-rah-rah.

Comments

[sierra-nevada.livejournal.com]

All you have to do is say the right thing to the right people.

The right people are the Christian Right.

The right thing to say is "the Mark of the Beast (http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/markbeas.htm)."

The last time this sort of bullshit came up, the ACLU was not the only one fighting it.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

It could work, if it's said to them by the right people.