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.