Posted on 02/06/2005 11:41:16 AM PST by JustAnotherSavage
I remember it too, but I can't find it. He's probably scared like everyone else of the "D" word.
This may be helpful:
Fulfilling a vow to return to these issues, Sensenbrenner (R.-Wis.) introduced the REAL ID act two weeks ago. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R.-Tex.) has scheduled a vote on the bill this week. HUMAN EVENTS Editor Terence P. Jeffrey spoke with Sensenbrenner last week about his proposal.
HUMAN EVENTS: What are the key provisions of your REAL ID act?
SENSENBRENNER: There are four provisions. First, an applicant for a driver's license or renewal must prove lawful presence in the United States, otherwise the driver's license will be endorsed that they have not done so. The driver's licenses would have to indicate lawful presence to be used for federal purposes, such as getting on an airplane. Second, the bill tightens the asylum laws so that terrorists, like the one who plotted the '93 World Trade Center bombing and the man who shot up the entrance to the CIA headquarters, could not get into the country and roam around as an asylum applicant. Third, the bill completes the 3-and-half mile gap in the border fence south of San Diego that has been held up as a result of environmental lawsuits. And fourth, the bill changes the law that says that if an alien is not admissible into the United States because of affiliation with terrorist groups, that alien is deportable. The present law says if someone makes a mistake to let you in, we cannot kick you out in some circumstances.
HUMAN EVENTS: When these provisions were being discussed last year, some in the Senate said we should not interfere with the rights of states to deal with their driver's licenses. Why does your proposal not contradict the 10th Amendment, which says that powers not specifically delegated to the federal government should be reserved to the states or the people?
SENSENBRENNER: It does not do so because it does not tell the states who they can issue driver's licenses to and who they can't. What it does say is that when they issue a driver's license, in order for that driver's license to be used for federal ID purposes, the applicant must show lawful presence in the United States. This, in my opinion, is a very important provision if we are to avoid the pressure for a national ID card, which I oppose.
Read the entire interview: http://www.HumanEventsOnline.com/article.php?id=6504
______
Nothing to mention in the bill to actually change any "illegal immigration" policies. Of course we could just enforce the existing laws, couldn't we? It doesn't call for more border enforcement or cutting off welfare, medical to illegals or adress anchor babies. This bill could go side by side next to Pres. Bush's "suggestions" with no problem, couldn't it? It really only addresses the "terrorism" aspect, which is why CAIR probably hates it. I'll have to read about their objections.
The bill seems to be a start, but not much else.
I have a question--
If there will be a mark or designation on the license that will signify whether the person is here legally or not for Federal ID purposes, WHY would the illegals go get the license to begin with?
And when they did, if they couldn't prove they are here legally, then why can't they be picked up and shipped back to their home country?
Sorry, I may be dense, but I am not seeing where this is gonna change anything..
The same "specially marked" license has been touted by Arnold in Calif. I guess they think it will somehow track people.
I'm with you, not much changing with this legislation. How can the OBL be so opposed. But they haven't said much one way or the other about Sensenbrenner's bill. I just don't know anymore.
Another question---
I read that the reason that the fence hasn't been completed in California is because of the presence of some birds and that the fence would bother their nesting place or something--correct?
If Sensenbrenner is going to the trouble to put the finishing of the fence in this bill---even though there are a bunch of people against it, then WHY aren't there fences going along the rest of the border?
I guarantee you that the people that live along the borders in Arizona and New Mexico and Texas would looooooooove to have fences put up, I dare say they would even hire some "illegals" to help put them up--I would add a laugh sign here, but I don't think I am that far off!!!
He is also having to correct decisions made by the 9th circuit in this bill---why don't they just get rid of the 9th circuit or something---
I'm sorry if I am not making sense--I just think that this bill is gonna cause a lot of debate and waste a lot of time, and I don't see enough problems solved--
Worth repeating again. Even if everyone ever born in America had a chip implanted, there is NO reason to believe the government would use that to more effectively fight illegal immigration.
In fact history tells us it will be used, not against illegals, but against us ourselves.
The government already has enough on people. They can probably be absolutely certain if you are legit within 60 seconds of getting back in their car and getting online to the various databases.
On the Homeland Security front...
After 9/11, President Bush authorized 2,000 new border-patrol agents per year for five years. Unfortunately, the figure now stands at 200, due to budget constraints (budget constraints that, sadly, have not applied to other agencies, such as DoEd, DoT, and PBS). Strangely, $74 million has been substituted for surveillance and aerial technology, in the hopes that this will make up for the lack of manpower on the ground. But if there was any message in the 9/11 report, it was that technological intelligence is no substitute for human intelligence.
This is not simply about Mexican illegals looking to work on a farm. Al-Qa'ida already has a foothold in countries like Venezuela, where it is suspected that the Chavez government had (has?) been protecting them with false-identity papers and passports. Former Taliban mullahs also fled there in 2000. If these cutthroats try to enter the U.S., it won't be through Nova Scotia.
The Federalist Patriot (FederalistPatriot.US)
http://FederalistPatriot.US/current2004a.asp
Feb. 4, 2005
_________
So, if you don't mind, not only the two sentences, but your entire reasoning for supporting this thing and any justifications you may have for wanting this bill... Ok???
I don't see, at a quick glance, the usual suspects accusing opponents of illegal immigration of racism and so on...
Thanks for the ping.
Thanks for the ping, Kevin!
-good times, G.J.P.(Jr.)
" but I believe even in Iraq they had to prove who they were before they could vote"
Yes,and we have our border patrol agents over there training Iraqi's and building forts to defend their borders.
snip--
Border Patrol lending a hand in Iraq
The Monitor ^ | February 01,2005 | Cari Hammerstrom
Posted on 02/01/2005 12:13:21 PM PST by SwinneySwitch
McALLEN An undisclosed number of U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers have voluntarily been in Iraq since at least August teaching members of the Iraqi Department of Border Enforcement how to secure the frontierlands, a U.S. Customs and Border Protection official said Monday.
Just as American soldiers have been given the task of readying an Iraqi militia to keep the peace in what some would refer to as a day-old democracy, CBP officers have also been busy schooling Iraqi border police on how to keep terrorists and arms out of the country.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1333643/posts
Sensenbrenner on Rush today (now 11:17 a.m. PST), says WH to endorse this today.
My rep is Waxman.....he is a traitor so there is no surprise he is not a sponsor.
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.