Although I didn't bring it up on the blog, I recently had some discussions about the passage of the so-called "Real ID" act by Congress last week. The President signed the bill into law. ArsTechnica had a lot of coverage of this issue (see articles here and here).
In brief, as part of a larger military appropriations bill, Congress passed a small provision that will require national ID cards by 2008, and also another provision that authorizes the INS to build a security fence from the Pacific Ocean south of San Diego 14 miles west into the desert. The fence provision is of great concern because it appears to permit the INS to use any means necessary to build the fence and to recuse the act and the INS both from any form of prosecution for anything that may happen during construction. This is very bad. The Real ID on its own was pretty bad, too--by 2008 all states will have to have the same drivers license, and it will have to have a chip in it that can be read by a standard card reader and that will contain far too muh of your personal information. This info will of course be kept by the government in a location that will immediately become ground zero for black hats and other nefarious types seeking to steal the identities of every single person in the U.S. at once. Brilliant.
I'm a member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and People For The American Way, and both groups were very strongly against these proposals--though hidden as they were neither group even became aware of their imminent passage until less than a week before the Senate vote. Through either PFAW or EFF, I don't recall which, I sent letters to Mel Martinez and Bill Nelson urging them to vote against the measures.
Now, I have said a lot of bad things about Senator Mel Martinez in the past (idiot, brainless, incapable of independent thought, unethical, demagogue, unworthy of the Senate, you name it). I will undoubtedly continue to say similar or worse things about him in the future ("Elect me!" he said. "I will be George Bush's slave!"). But never let me say that he does not at least have a staff person read and respond to his emails. Many, many Senators and Congressmen do not take the time to do this. If it doesn't come via post or the telephone, rarely will you get a response from anyone in Washington. Mel, however, took the time to respond to my letter and I think that's worthy of praise. I certainly appreciate it and my respect for him has gone up at least an iota. Maybe even a theta.
Forthwith, his response:
Dear Mr. Smith:
Thank you for contacting me. I appreciate hearing from you regarding minimum standards for state drivers' licenses and personal identification cards and would like to respond to your concerns.
In the aftermath of the tragic terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001, Congress has worked diligently to address the weaknesses in our nation's ability to identify and react to intelligence information regarding potential terrorist threats. On December 17, 2004, the president signed into law S. 2845, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458). This bill was a critical first step in enhancing our intelligence infrastructure and capabilities as we continue fighting the global war on terror.
For example, in response to the rising problem of identification fraud, the Senate included in the Intelligence Reform bill various provisions to establish minimum national standards for driver's licenses and personal identification cards. These provisions require that each driver's license or identification card include specific individual information, contain physical security features to prevent fraud, and have common machine-readable technology.
Since that time, both Congress and the Administration have looked at ways to continue to strengthen our borders and secure our families at home. On February 10, 2005, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act of 2005, legislation that would tighten national standards for State driver's licenses, make it more difficult for foreign nationals to claim asylum, and authorize the completion of a security fence along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Recently, I joined my colleagues to unanimously pass the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2005 for Defense, the Global War on Terrorism, and Tsunami Relief (H.R. 1268). The REAL ID Act was added as an amendment to H.R. 1268 by the House of Representatives and was included in the conference report passed by the Senate on May 10, 2005. While I agree that we need to look at ways to strengthen our borders, I do not believe that the Emergency Supplemental was the appropriate vehicle for that debate.
Our immigration policies need to show a balance between securing our borders and being open to individuals who come to this country seeking freedom and a better way of life. I am hopeful that in the future we will have a more comprehensive debate on immigration reform. However, it was imperative to get funding to our troops as quickly as possible, and I therefore voted with my colleagues to unanuimously pass the Emergency Supplemental.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. If you have any additional questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Mel Martinez
United States Senator
I would like to say one more time that I'm very pleased that the Senator responded at all. I didn't vote for him. I won't vote for him in 2010. But I did vote for Bill Nelson and I will do so again this year, and Nelson never responded. So foo on him.
However, I disagree not only with almost everything Martinez said, but also with the way he said and with all the things he didn't say as well. This may not actually be possible, but I strongly dislike the Senator and so whether it's possible or not, it's how I feel.
Anyway, the Senator does at least point out that he did not think it was appropriate to put the Real ID act on the military supplemental bill. Of course it wasn't. The sole purpose for doing so was to get the thing passed without debate, which is precisely what happened. However, I think the Senator does me and all his constituents and the entire country a deep disservice by leaving his complaints there and not considering further the inherent weaknesses of the Act itself.
1. Where is the Senator's mention of the vast negative implications for identity fraud? Putting all Americans' information in a single storage location is quite possible the most idiotic thing to come out of Washington since Marion Berry. Do they honestly think they can keep this thing secure? And if so, can we get them thrown out of office for mental incompetence? I would have liked the Senator to speak to this issue.
2. The Senator casually references the security fence along the border without mentioning that it's only 14 miles long or that, as the Act is written, the government can bulldoze your house with you in it and kill your whole family and you'll have no legal recourse through the courts. There is a line in the U.S. Constitution (this is covered in greater detail in the ArsTechnica links above) that may be interpreted as allowing Congress to declare certain things outside the realm of the courts. The Act is written, I believe, specifically to test that interpretation against public opinion. If it works with a 14-mile security fence, it might work again with something bigger, and then a third time with something even bigger, until finally Congress gets the balls to declare everything they do uncontestable in the courts. The Senator makes no mention whatsoever of this concern, acting as if the concern did not exist and was not mentioned in the letter I sent him. Very interesting.
3. These two onerous acts were developed and supported by Republicans. Republicans used to believe in federalism, in shrinking the federal government, and in returning power to the states. Now they want the federal government to decide what information has to be on your drivers license and which side of the card your picture should go on. Where did they get this power from? Why do GOPers complain so heartily about "activisit liberal judges" who "legislate from the bench" and "create rights not found in the Constitution," and then turn right around the next day and develop this plan to creat powers not found in the Constitution? How two-faced can one group of people possibly be? And how damned stupid can we as Americans be to let this shit go on?
Mel, if you're reading, I'd love a response...
No comments:
Post a Comment