Posted on 12/01/2003 11:28:35 PM PST by farmfriend
That's about right ;)
OK, so you want us to ape, among other nations, the British Empire.
Are you arguing that the American Revolution was a mistake, and that we should rescind the Declaration of Independence?
We haven't HAD a guest worker program in 38 years. We didn't start having a large-scale illegal immigration problem until...38 years ago.
Fancy that. Might they be related?
Poohbah, you're forgetting 'Operation Hold-the-Line'. That was in response to a large-scale ILLEGAL immigration problem.
Our present "large-scale immigration problem" coincides with first John Kennedy's and then Teddy Kennedy's attempts at immigration reform.
Lest you be allowed to conveniently forget that, too.
I see, so just because the British do something, we should not. Therefore let's abolish the system of common law. We can't use English anymore, now, can we. Let's make Esperanto our official language. Your arguments just keep getting stupider.
Nonsense. Domestic air travel requires the use of the interstate air traffic control system, and therefore is subject to regulation by Congress because of the Interstate Commerce Clause. If congress can require all passangers to show a state government id, it can require a Federal government id.
The Lemuel Penn case affirmed the right to interstate travel. It had nothing to do with requiring identification to board planes.
Give it up. You're grasping at straws. You have yet to make a single rational argument.
I've been telling him that for years. Well, at least it seems like years. ;^)
Dont know about the other countries you mentioned,but there is no compulsory passport law in Australia.
Nonsense. Paid interstate travel is a form of interstate commerce, and hence subject to regulation by Congress. About a dozen or so Supreme Court cases affirm this fact. Our right to interestate travel, like many other rights (eg. the right to bear arms), are subject to regulation. So long as the regulation continues to allow all citizens who wish to do so to travel accross state lines, there is no violation of the right. In this case, all citizens can easily get a passport, so requiring a passport for interstate travel does not violate your rights any more than requiring a state-issued ID.
That passport can easily be abused to control aperson's movements.
Not any more than a driver's liscence or other state government issued ID, which are currently required on all domestic flights.
My proposal is very rational. Passports are easy to get, difficult to forge, and easy to keep track of. The same is not true of drivers liscences. Therefore it is irrational to have state-issued drivers' liscences, which come in 50 different varieties, be the standard ID. It is far more rational to have a single, easily monitored, and difficult to forge standard national ID, such as a passport.
You claim that having a passport be the standard id would reduce our freedom. You have yet to support this assertion with a single rational argument.
Nonsense. Paid interstate travel is a form of interstate commerce, and hence subject to regulation by Congress. About a dozen or so Supreme Court cases affirm this fact. Our right to interestate travel, like many other rights (eg. the right to bear arms), are subject to regulation. So long as the regulation continues to allow all citizens who wish to do so to travel accross state lines, there is no violation of the right. In this case, all citizens can easily get a passport, so requiring a passport for interstate travel does not violate your rights any more than requiring a state-issued ID.
That passport can easily be abused to control aperson's movements.
Not any more than a driver's liscence or other state government issued ID, which are currently required on all domestic flights.
My proposal is very rational. Passports are easy to get, difficult to forge, and easy to keep track of. The same is not true of drivers liscences. Therefore it is irrational to have state-issued drivers' liscences, which come in 50 different varieties, be the standard ID. It is far more rational to have a single, easily monitored, and difficult to forge standard national ID, such as a passport.
You claim that having a passport be the standard id would reduce our freedom. You have yet to support this assertion with a single rational argument.
What sort of ID must you present to open a bank account in Australia?
Seeing as how that we had a revolution over this very issue...it's not a bad way to bet.
Well, the British are not exactly a bastion of liberty.
If your newspaper starts investigating government corruption, Her Majesty's Government can invoke the Official Secrets Act and issue a "D-Notice," which essentially tells the editor that publishing anything displeasing to Her Majesty's ministers may result in rather serious criminal charges being filed against the owner and editor. Shuts the newspapers right up.
I shan't even mention the issue of firearms ownership...
Actually, they aren't really required. It's just much easier if you do use them.
Chutch, the fire-bomb throwing, free-loading, anti-American military ingrates in Puerto Rico have stolen the naval base at Roosevelt Roads, PR away from the U.S. Taxpayers that owned it. Just as I said they would.
The Bush brothers and the whole rest of the Bush family, that have been picking up recycled U.S. Taxpayer's dollars as campaign contributions in Puerto Rico for over 20 years, allowed them to steal it. Just as I said they would.
Only RINOs and Liberal Democrats fear being called a bigot, by whining weasels, for telling the truth.
Talk to your brother about your fear of the truth. Maybe he can help you deal with it. ;^)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.