No need for remote retinal scans
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: Seems odd that this baby passed unanimously (100-0) My understanding is that Senators know how the vote is going to go long before it is called and if it is going to pass by a wide margin they will all vote in favor so as not to spend time analyzing it too deeply.
JWood wrote: if it is going to pass by a wide margin they will all vote in favor so as not to spend time analyzing it too deeply. ...and in doing so they make it impossible for the electorate to analyze their voting records. Grrrr! As a rule, I hate politicians with every fiber of my being. "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
-
Easy there, don't get your knickers in a twist. :) My guess is that if you're a citizen of the U.S. and have a driver's license that was issued in the last 5-10 years (maybe more), you've already got an ID that meets these criteria. All Real ID stipulates is that there is "machine readable" information. This could be a bar code, a magnetic stripe, or some kind of smart card (RFID or contact). My guess is that most of you out there already have a license with a bar code and/or magnetic stripe. Smart cards have yet to take off in the U.S. one of the main reasons is that they are very expensive - several dollars for the card itself as opposed to cents. Plus, there's the whole reader infrastructure. Oh, and don't get concerned about being able to be tracked by an RFID card, all the ones I've seen have a reading range of <6". Oh, and they're surprisingly secure (not to say that any security is perfect). BTW - If you're concerned about the fact that all state DMVs need to now be linked together, let me give you a hint - they already were. The FBI and presumably all forms of federal intelligence have been able to search all state DBs for a long time. I think this is a good thing when you're trying to find some sleezeball criminal. The other main focus of Real ID is to prevent illegal aliens from getting driver's licenses and IDs. Since they're already ILLEGAL aliens, I really don't have a problem with this.
The RFID component, I would say if implemented, is outrageous. As to remotely ID'ing, the RFID technology in the RealID card is the passive component. The active component, the reader, can be as advanced as they want to make it. Anti-shoplifting technology is certainly more than 6 inches, more like 6 feet, and that is already implemented and mature technology. I understand the illegal argument, but my question why they are a million aliens freed, is this really their priority? Why are many states considering giving services to illegal immigrants? And the judiciary - not all one group certainly - but I can't imagine that a judge like in Mike Gaskey's reply, would do something like that without some kind of support. Authorities free 1 million aliens amid proceedings[^]
-
Chris Losinger wrote: and that'll be the end of legal abortion murder Probably, but don't confuse this with that abhorent practice of the death penalty. Chris Losinger wrote: since most people, especiallly conservatives, trust the government completely. as long as conservatives dominate elective office. Chris Losinger wrote: what could the DHS possibly be planning to do that they would need to be able to violate the constitution without being punished for it ? I think they're building a fence, but the 9th district court might see it as an infringement of Mexico's soverign right to displace Americans. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me K(arl) wrote: Date:8:50 23 Feb '05 I love you.
Mike Gaskey wrote: I think they're building a fence AFAIK, that's correct: the DHS wants to extend a border barrier. The problem is that the remaining length of it goes through an environmentally sensitive region and some people are concerned about the impact of the construction, etc. on the flora and fauna there. The clause in the bill is an attempt to get around environmental impact laws. 'til next we type... HAVE FUN!! -- Jesse
-
The DMV lacks the expertise and the statutory authority to act as "an enforcer" for the Department of Homeland Security, a state Supreme Court judge, Karen Smith, wrote in a decision released yesterday.
yep. the DMV should be able to do whatever it wants, regardless of whether or not it actually has the authority to do it. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
The DMV certainly is bothe empowered and oblicgated to verify that drivers licences are only issued to people that are qualified to hold them. No state law permits a person in the country illegally to receive a drivers license. In this context, it is acting only as an enforcer of the rules it is chartered to operate under. The judge is full of Crap. I don't think there is any other country that will issue you a drivers license if you are in that country without valid documenation, nor should they. Anger is the most impotent of passions. It effects nothing it goes about, and hurts the one who is possessed by it more than the one against whom it is directed. Carl Sandburg
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: I think they're building a fence AFAIK, that's correct: the DHS wants to extend a border barrier. The problem is that the remaining length of it goes through an environmentally sensitive region and some people are concerned about the impact of the construction, etc. on the flora and fauna there. The clause in the bill is an attempt to get around environmental impact laws. 'til next we type... HAVE FUN!! -- Jesse
assuming the arsTechnica article is correct, the immigration law already exempts the DHS from environmental laws. this "no judicial review" is on top of that. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
The DMV certainly is bothe empowered and oblicgated to verify that drivers licences are only issued to people that are qualified to hold them. No state law permits a person in the country illegally to receive a drivers license. In this context, it is acting only as an enforcer of the rules it is chartered to operate under. The judge is full of Crap. I don't think there is any other country that will issue you a drivers license if you are in that country without valid documenation, nor should they. Anger is the most impotent of passions. It effects nothing it goes about, and hurts the one who is possessed by it more than the one against whom it is directed. Carl Sandburg
Rob Graham wrote: No state law permits a person in the country illegally to receive a drivers license. 1. is the DMV able to determine if a person is in the country legally or not ? 2. the article made it pretty clear that the DMV was trying to revoke licenses issued under duplicate SSNs. that is something that happens outside the context of illegal immigration. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Rob Graham wrote: No state law permits a person in the country illegally to receive a drivers license. 1. is the DMV able to determine if a person is in the country legally or not ? 2. the article made it pretty clear that the DMV was trying to revoke licenses issued under duplicate SSNs. that is something that happens outside the context of illegal immigration. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote: 2. the article made it pretty clear that the DMV was trying to revoke licenses issued under duplicate SSNs. that is something that happens outside the context of illegal immigration. quite a stretch there. how in the world is that outside the context? Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me K(arl) wrote: Date:8:50 23 Feb '05 I love you.
-
Chris Losinger wrote: 2. the article made it pretty clear that the DMV was trying to revoke licenses issued under duplicate SSNs. that is something that happens outside the context of illegal immigration. quite a stretch there. how in the world is that outside the context? Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me K(arl) wrote: Date:8:50 23 Feb '05 I love you.
using someone else's SSN to obtain a new driver's license is common in identity theft. http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs17a.htm[^] see point 12 Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
using someone else's SSN to obtain a new driver's license is common in identity theft. http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs17a.htm[^] see point 12 Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote: using someone else's SSN to obtain a new driver's license is common in identity theft yes but licenses with duplicates means in fact that there is a problem, so why shouldn't something be done? easy enough to prove you're who you say you are if who you say you are is really you. an inconvenience, certainly. but a nessary one. If you contrast the inconvenience with the potential for another strike and the inconvenience can go some small distance towards perventing another 9-11 I would certainly say it is worth it. Of course a lot of this is smoke and mirrors until and unless we get to the point where we're actually guarding our borders. but it still will make life more difficult for illegals, regardless of the border situation. make it difficult enough and the flow will slow. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me K(arl) wrote: Date:8:50 23 Feb '05 I love you.
-
Chris Losinger wrote: using someone else's SSN to obtain a new driver's license is common in identity theft yes but licenses with duplicates means in fact that there is a problem, so why shouldn't something be done? easy enough to prove you're who you say you are if who you say you are is really you. an inconvenience, certainly. but a nessary one. If you contrast the inconvenience with the potential for another strike and the inconvenience can go some small distance towards perventing another 9-11 I would certainly say it is worth it. Of course a lot of this is smoke and mirrors until and unless we get to the point where we're actually guarding our borders. but it still will make life more difficult for illegals, regardless of the border situation. make it difficult enough and the flow will slow. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me K(arl) wrote: Date:8:50 23 Feb '05 I love you.
Mike Gaskey wrote: yes but licenses with duplicates means in fact that there is a problem sure, but it doesn't necessarily imply an illegal immigration problem. Mike Gaskey wrote: so why shouldn't something be done? not saying there shouldn't be. i'm just saying it's not an immigration thing. Mike Gaskey wrote: make it difficult enough and the flow will slow. i still favor the demand side: make it less atractive and the flow will slow. but who's gonna stand up to the farmers & construction companies and say "No! Bad employer! No illegal labor for you!" ? Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Rob Graham wrote: No state law permits a person in the country illegally to receive a drivers license. 1. is the DMV able to determine if a person is in the country legally or not ? 2. the article made it pretty clear that the DMV was trying to revoke licenses issued under duplicate SSNs. that is something that happens outside the context of illegal immigration. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote: 1. is the DMV able to determine if a person is in the country legally or not ? Chris, it's not up to the DMV to determine if a person is in the country legally or not it's just a matter of the DMV asking for proof of citizenship. Please don't mix up the issue here. The DMV also is required to get proof of age, passing eye exams, medical papers, and and other required documents like driver's education papers. What makes you think the DMV is now supposed to determine if a person is in the country legally or not? I think a lot of people are blowing the entire thing way too big than it is. If I go to buy some booze, they guy cards me to verify my age, if I'm not old enough, he sends me away. Now, the DMV is required to get proof of citizenship, same deal, and I am 100 percent for it!
-
Chris Losinger wrote: 1. is the DMV able to determine if a person is in the country legally or not ? Chris, it's not up to the DMV to determine if a person is in the country legally or not it's just a matter of the DMV asking for proof of citizenship. Please don't mix up the issue here. The DMV also is required to get proof of age, passing eye exams, medical papers, and and other required documents like driver's education papers. What makes you think the DMV is now supposed to determine if a person is in the country legally or not? I think a lot of people are blowing the entire thing way too big than it is. If I go to buy some booze, they guy cards me to verify my age, if I'm not old enough, he sends me away. Now, the DMV is required to get proof of citizenship, same deal, and I am 100 percent for it!
Anonymous wrote: What makes you think the DMV is now supposed to determine if a person is in the country legally or not? wait, didn't you just say this: "... it's just a matter of the DMV asking for proof of citizenship" Anonymous wrote: Now, the DMV is required to get proof of citizenship that's not quite what the article says, and not what the article says the judge said.
A judge ruled yesterday that the state Department of Motor Vehicles cannot proceed with a plan to revoke hundreds of thousands of driver's licenses based on immigration status. The DMV lacks the expertise and the statutory authority to act as "an enforcer" for the Department of Homeland Security, a state Supreme Court judge, Karen Smith, wrote in a decision released yesterday.
Anonymous wrote: and I am 100 percent for it for what?
...New York is one of 12 states that currently do not grant licenses to undocumented immigrants.