Replies

How is that possible? Simple. Every time you hire someone you have to check their papers. In the case of a US citizen, it must be a passport.

I see. I was not aware that a US citizen was required to get a passport. Hell, I worked for over 15 years without one, until my job required international travel.

So now we will have passports for our internal commerce. Just like the late and unlamented USSR.

This system will require all citizens to have passports, and some Freepers won't like that. I say tough. You cannot have effective homeland security with 50 different forms of identification floating around.

He who would trade his freedom for security deserves neither.

Your proposal would kill the 10th Amendment for good. Maybe we should repeal a few of those other inconvenient amendments, too.

4th Amendment? Hey, you can't have effective homeland security if people can expect to be left alone without probable cause.

2nd Amendment, Hey, you can't have effective homeland security if the serfs--er, citizens--might be able to employ lethal force against the guardians of the revolutionary vanguard--er, "Committee of State Security."

1st Amendment? You can't have effective homeland security if you allow people to criticize their government undermines the public's trust in their leaders and guardians.

5th Amendment? You can't have effective homeland security if the guardians of of public virtue can't force the serfs to testify to their crimes against the people, or if the serfs can actually demand that they be paid for their property when the needs of the state demand that they forfeit same.

So now we will have passports for our internal commerce. Just like the late and unlamented USSR.

Guilt by association. Most free countries require passports as a standard form of ID.

He who would trade his freedom for security deserves neither.

What freedom am I trading?

Your proposal would kill the 10th Amendment for good.

Nonsense. Immigration enforcement is a Federal jurisdiction, and therefore requiring Federal IDs as verification of lawful immigration status falls within Congress's powers under the elastic clause, strictly constructed. The same logic applies for requiring a Federal ID for a bank account.

Requiring a Federal ID to get on an interstate flight falls within Congressional power under the interstate commerce clause, even as it was strictly constructed before 1937.

Don't think I've ever had a passport. Don't really see that I will have a need for one in the future, either.

Ironically, the previous post PROVES the point Mr. Kling is making. The level of enforcement demanded by some people of our immigration laws would not be tolerated by the majority of people in this country.

If the choice is between the options I have seen presented, then I'll take the course of action Mr. Kling proposes in a heartbeat, and if it makes Michelle Malkin cattier than she usually is in her columns, too friggin' bad!