Defending the Truth

I can agree with that, I was born in Baltimore, Grew Up in Philadelphia, I have a Virginia Drivers liscense with a Mississippi address on it (That blows cops minds), my car is registered in Mississippi, and I have a permit to carry in MS, TX, AL, FL, PA & NJ...

Being a conservative, I like more than others hate governmental intrusion. However, I think that it is a fools errand to demand that the government protect us, and then not to provide the government with the tools necessary to do the job.

I believe that provisions of our this bill provide some of those tools necessary. I also believe that it is a good first step in outlawing the practice of allowing the very government that is meant to protect us from issuing identification to illegal immigrants. Regardless of how you feel over the immigration topic, one thing is very clear, when government rewards criminals, something is wrong.

dmk

But I suspect that with a little more thought and care given to the subject we could find ways that are much better and less intrusive to our people. Granted, this bill in it's current form is not so bad, but you must be able to look down the road and see what it could lead to, then you have to be able to be proactive enough to prevent the bad possibilities. Protection is one thing, infringement on rights is another. I for one will not trade my rights for the illusion of security.

I agree that we must be prooactive, but that does not mean killing the current, but rather ensuring that safeguards are placed so that the bill cannot become what we fear, of this leading to a national ID card.

Again, I agree with the proposition that a national ID is too intrusive, however, I also agree that this bill offers protections that are long over due.

dmk

Fair enough, that seems to be an even keeled, well thought out solution.

Journalist Matthew L. Wald wrote for the New York Times 9 May 2007I don't know why they keep calling it a "driver’s license". If it waddles like a National ID, and quacks like a National ID, well...

I'd agree with sgtdmski on this. I think since it's still going to contain pretty much the same info, it's not that intrusive. The additional time line for those here temporarily is a big plus. Will it prevent illegals from getting their IDs? I don't think so.

I sent this Email to my Congressional District Representative:

NATIONAL ID CARD

Journalist Alissa J. Rubin wrote for the New York Times 12 April 2007: "A suicide bomber wearing an explosive vest struck deep inside the heavily fortified International Zone on Thursday, killing eight people when he detonated inside the Parliament building just a few feet from the main chamber. In a separate and in some ways equally traumatic attack early in the day, a truck bomb destroyed the beloved, 60-year-old Sarafiya bridge across the Tigris and killed six people. The heavily traveled bridge has long been a symbol of Baghdad, illustrated on old postcards and drawings of the city from a more peaceful time."

Journalist Eric Lipton wrote for the New York Times 2 March 2007: "Nearly 240 million Americans and legal residents will have to spend an estimated $20 more for a standardized and tamper-proof driver’s license by 2013 to comply with a proposed new federal rule issued Thursday. Congress imposed the mandate for the new licenses in 2005, agreeing with the 9/11 Commission that terrorists’ access to fake licenses or state-issued identification cards made the 2001 plot easier to carry out."

Before this National ID Card is used in the United States, I am suggesting that it be issued in Iraq for a test run to see if it is effective. If it is not effective, then it would most certainly not be very effective here in the United States, and the legislation requiring it should be repealed.

It does sound like that, Tadpole. But what's wrong with our state driver's licenses?

Terrorist groups like Al Qaeda would have a field day with that, just by making fake ID's and whatever they think they can use to fool the authorities.