this could come to pass in your state too.

Unnecessary and Intrusive: REAL ID is a real threat to Colorado
By Mike Krause Oct. 20th, 2006
If the Colorado Legislature does nothing but implement the REAL ID Act, as the federal government demands, then after May, 2008, all Colorado driver's license holders will have to be "re-enrolled" under as of yet unknown regulations decided by the federal Department of Homeland Security. In other words, the state driver's license will become a de-facto national ID and the Colorado Division of Motor Vehicles will be little more than a branch office of Homeland Security. Moreover, Colorado lawmakers (and thus Coloradoans) will have little or no say as to how driver's licenses are issued, what information will be attached to the license or who will have access to that information.

Rather than making the case for a federal takeover of state driver's license issuance, Republicans cynically attached REAL ID to an un-related emergency spending bill for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for Tsunami relief, thus ensuring both passage and the President's signature in 2005.

REAL ID was marketed as a tool against terrorist travel and illegal immigration, but with even the slightest scrutiny, these arguments fall apart.

Shortly after passage of the act, a Rocky Mountain News editorial quoted a spokesman for the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, inadvertently making the case against REAL ID: "Eighteen of the 19 (Sept. 11) hijackers could've used their passports, but chose instead to use state-issued ID and driver's licenses and it allowed them to get on the planes without detection." In other words, terrorists who don't have U.S. driver's licenses can simply board a plane with a passport. As the News correctly asked, "So how exactly would this misguided law have stopped them?" The short answer is: it wouldn't have.

As for illegal immigration, during the 2006 special session, the Colorado General Assembly passed a state law denying certain state services to undocumented immigrants. In the first month after the law went into effect, the Colorado Division of Motor Vehicles caught over a thousand illegal immigrants trying to pass fake documents to obtain a driver's license.

In other words, a state law intended to affect only those already violating the law has accomplished most of what REAL ID claims to do...without a massive federal mandate making every Colorado license holder and applicant into a suspected terrorist or illegal alien.

Yet even this narrowly defined state law has managed to snare the law-abiding. As the Rocky Mountain News describes it, the daughter of Colorado State Senator Andy McElhany was denied her learners permit when the DMV refused to accept her U.S. passport as proof of citizenship. The good news is that such blundering can be easily addressed by Colorado lawmakers. The bad news is that in a few more years, the same people who are in charge of airport security and no-fly lists will be in charge of the DMV.

A recent report jointly released by the National Governor's Association, National Conference of State Legislators and American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators estimates that implementation of REAL ID will cost states over $11 billion dollars. According to the National Governors Association, "The days of going to the DMV and getting your license on the same day are probably over, you will have to take all your documents as if you are applying for the first time." And you will get the pleasure of "applying for the first time" every five years.

But more than just expensive and intrusive, the act is also a fairly stunning case of federal coercion against the states.

Since Congress cannot legislate that states implement federal regulatory programs, REAL ID instead will deny anyone who does not carry a REAL ID compliant license after 2008 the ability to board a plane, open a bank account, or any other service or activity the federal government claims jurisdiction over.

As Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the Washington D.C.-based Cato Institute notes, "If Congress wants every American to carry a national ID, Congress should vote for it openly, pay for it directly, and answer to voters itself. It should not slough its national ID policies onto the states."

The Colorado Legislature could help force Congress to do its own dirty work by refusing to implement REAL ID. While a U.S. passport would be acceptable for "federal" purposes, it would be interesting to hear Colorado's congressional delegation explain to constituents who don't hold a passport why it is they can no longer board a plane or open a bank account simply because they are not carrying the proper papers.

Jordan ended his post with the following:

Tell me: In a nutshell, in language that will resonate with "normal" people, what's wrong with a National ID?

-----------------------------------

With respect to those people who choose to bury their heads in the sand, a larger part of the population than you might think, possibly the "normal" people you mentioned, then look up in surprise when something big and nasty bites them roundly on the ass, I susect that virtually nothing you can say is likely to "resonate" with such people.

Otherwise, I suggest that you read through the other posts included in this discussion, there aren't that many, and you might perhaps get an idea or two. Sad to note though, as I mentioned before, I suspect that there isn't much that you can say to most of those "normal" people, for they simply aren't willing to face realities and or imminent possibilities or probabilities.

Note if you will that I say when not if, we become completely registered and otherwise regimented, all for our own good of course, and Papers Please becomes an all to commonly heard request, I'd be willing to bet my last dollar that the first thing to go will be "Please".

In 1759 or thereabouts, Benjamin Franklin offered the following bit of wisdom. He that sacrifices essential liberties to gain temporary security shall have neither security nor liberty. Altogether to many people have forgotten that simple admonition, or they were never learned much from whatever history classes they might have taken. Yes,Jordan, it is sad.

Finally, the late Lyndon Johnson, whom I had no love, for once offered the following. It's most certainloy applicable to this Read ID Law. When looking at any legislative proposal, we must look not at the good ends that it is claimed will accrue from the proper operation and enforcement of this legislation, but rather at the bad ends that will come from it's improper operation and enforcement. He was right on that point people.

Lone_Gunman writes:

The national ID always gets feathers ruffled on THR, but really there have been much bigger infringements on our rights during Bush's presidency that have caused much less commotion. Go figure. I guess that is because it is easy to see an ID card, and little things like free political speech are much more esoteric and harder to see.

Between my current driver license, social security card, income tax returns, patriot act notifications of financial transactions, C&R license, professional licence, etc., the government already knows most everything about me anyway.

-------------------------

The following is not intended to belittle such other infringements on our rights during Bush's presidency, or infringements on our rights during previous administrations, however as you say, that National Identity Card, most certainly would be "easy to see".

As to the other things you mention, various other licenses that you have, and so on, all true so far as it goes. Having said that, it remains, as you noted, that a National Identity Card would be EASY TO SEE, and that is why there is the commotion about it that you mention.

Illbob offered, and Tecumseh seems to agree with him on the following: "We long ago accepted the idea that it is OK for government agents to require us to produce ID on demand. "Papers please" is, and has been here for many years."

--------------------------

First place, what MIGHT prove to be the final word on this arises from a RECENT ruling by the USSC, that is to say within the last couple of years.

Second, is the following. Who exactly is the "we" mentioned above? The USSC has spoken on the subject and their words are powerful. Likely, some portion of the population will agree with them on this too, but as to what proportion of the populatiopn so thinks, feels or believes, that could well be an entirely different matter. Notwithstanding the weight behind USSC rulings, to say that their rulings are reflective of any particular proportion of The Will Of The People could turn out to be a very long stretch indeed, incorrect too.

In any event, and the following is my own personal opinion, the idea of a requirement for any form of National ID Card makes the hair on the back of my neck crawl.

Big Calhoun asks:

So what is the solution to preventing identity theft as it relates to criminal and fraudulent activity? I don't what to have to show my ID to some 7ft tall desk jockey, but I don't want the authorities coming after me because I'm a suspected suicide bomber (due to identity theft) either. Where is the happy medium?
---------------------

Re this Happy Medium, I do not know if there is one, nor if there should be one. However before belaboring the citizenry with ever more bureaucratic baloney, The Congress and the government should be required to demonstrate the effectiveness, the practicallity of such bureaucratic baloney as this Nation ID Card business would be. I do not know if they have actually so demonstrated or even tried. I suspect they haven't.

By the way, as to Identity Theft and the increasing problems therewith, consider this. Has either The Congress, via it's legislative powers or any government agency via it's statutory authority acted to significantly curb the misuse of Social Security Numbers, they being the heart's delight of Identity Theives, demands for your "Sosch" being found wherever one looks. Then there all those lovely and LEAKY government and private data bases, the ones like ChoicePoint for instance, that seem so conspiciously lacking in data security.

You see, looking at government claims of concern for your safety, and that old song about "It's all for your own good", this citizen is left singularly unimpressed, especially when it turns out that The Congress seems more concerned with the convenience of banks and credit card issuers, than it does with maintaining something I consider to be important, THE PRIVACY OF THE INDIVIDUAL.

I will now climb down from my soapbox.