Posted on 04/17/2006 8:50:15 AM PDT by af_vet_rr
In 1775, New Hampshire was the first colony to declare its independence from oppressive laws and taxes levied by the British crown.
Now it may become the first state to declare its independence from an oppressive digital ID law concocted in Washington, D.C.
New Hampshire's House of Representatives has overwhelmingly approved a remarkable bill, HB 1582, that would prohibit the state from participating in the national ID card system that will be created in 2008. A state Senate vote is expected as early as next week.
The federal law in question is the Real ID Act (here's our FAQ on the topic) that was glued on to a military spending and tsunami relief bill last year. Because few politicians are courageous enough to be seen as opposing tsunami aid, the measure sailed through the U.S. Senate by a 100-0 vote and navigated its way through the House 368 votes to 58.
Unless states issue new, electronically readable ID cards that adhere to federal standards, the law says, Americans will need a passport to do everyday things like travel on an airplane, open a bank account, sign up for Social Security or enter a federal building.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.com ...
National ID? When did that become law? I refuse to get one!
it is not.
it should have been titled the "anti-counterfit" law.
No more cheep laminate IDs. No more paper SS cards.
(it is a way to also have good IDs for voting)
Exactly right...a National ID card is not going to "protect" any of us...and, in any event, the feds are less interested in protecting the American people than in making sure the American people feel they need to rely on the feds to protect them. The great state of NH is always on the frontlines of the battles against the federal nanny state:
New Hampshire bill aims to prevent Katrina-style gun seizures
Concord NH--Concerned by perceived abuses of Federal power during the Katrina crisis, New Hampshire state reps are reviewing a bill which would criminalize certain weapons seizures - even if the perpetrators are Federal officers. House Bill 1639-FN, prohibits the confiscation of lawfully owned and lawfully carried firearms during a state of emergency, making a felon of any law enforcement officer who attempts to seize such a firearm during a disaster.
The bill was sponsored by Rep. Paul Hopfgarten at the request of local Free Staters - members of a group trying to recruit freedom lovers to New Hampshire and turn it an even more libertarian state than it already is
The bill reads: "Any law enforcement officer, person acting as a law enforcement officer, or other public official who confiscates or attempts to confiscate lawfully carried or lawfully owned firearms in this state during a declared state of emergency shall be charged with a class A felony."
In the chaos following Hurricane Katrina, various government agencies - including Federal Marshalls - made systematic attempts to sweep New Orleans of guns - even if that meant entering the homes of law abiding gun owners. The move did not cause widespread outrage in most states. But New Hampshire residents reacted by burning a FEMA flag in front of a local Federal building. They also circulated a petition pledging resistance if such a move were ever attempted in the "Live Free or Die" state....a place where guns are part of the culture and gun laws are the second-loosest in the nation.
Activists say whether it passes or not, this "Gun Protection Bill" is one more small thing they can do to try and protect themselves from disarmament at the hands of any government, during a time when they believe they will need their weapons most.
These days and times make it unfortunately necessary for one to be able to identify one's self via an untamperable bio-metricmethod.
Identity thieves (who I believe should be executed upon discovery right in the store, or shortly thereafter) won't have such an easy time passing checks & stolen credit/debit cards, getting fake loans, purchasing in your name, etc.
Notification of foreigners here on visas that have expired should be part of the system, also the phoney ones too, with swift deportation awaiting the cheaters, who could also be criminals with ill intent.
As for the Illegals, they will be quickly be gone for failing ID checks for/at empolyment, bank accounts, check cashing, wire transfers, ER & free clinic, driving and other licenses, an array of social services, SSI benefits, so much more. Gone to then try to return via legal means.
Hey? isn't that what the Nazi party was?
It only restricts the lawful.
The American people need to understand that the United States is under attack!
&&
And then, after that, they'll use them to read our minds! Oh, no!
Is it implated in the forhead or back of the hand? </sarc>
Nope. Not if you set up the legal burdens correctly. The problem with the current system is that employers have the easy "out" from legal liability by claiming they relied on forged documents. Close that loophole with a better I.D., limit by statute the appeal process, and you can greatly increase enforcement.
The trick, though, is that you've got to give them an incentive to signup for the I.D.'s in the first place.
The incentive is to require the ID to transfer their money to Mexico. Once we cut down the flow to Mexico, the Mexican govt will feel the pressure and stop encouraging the immigration.
Well we don't deport or even detain illegal immigrants. We don't require English to be spoken. Their children are entitled to a free education, free emergency medical care and cannot be asked their status as a citizen ( in NY anyway).
How will my carrying a national ID card change this situation? Fix those problems first, build a wall, then see if we still need a national ID.
Why can't they just carry it, and go back over the border the same way they came in?
That's not true, and you posting that as fact is indicative of one of the biggest problems in trying to debate this subject intelligently. Namely, that there are too many people asserting things as facts that aren't.
ping
"No person in the U.S. is required to present identification on demand. The fourth amendment does not say anything about citizenship. Suffrage is a whole separate issue, and the leftists tend to lump them together. Once the right to be secure in your person, papers, and effects is waived; suffrage becomes moot. Retroactive laws that disenfranchise a larger group are desired by both parties."
You are correct. Howwever, that is the source of the problem. On one hand, we have the freedom not to "show our papers" on demand. On the other, that means that anyone in this country must be assumed to be here legally.
There's a definite conflict here, and that's at the heart of our immigration problems right now. If you cannot demand that someone prove his or her citizenship, then everyone becomes a citizen by default.
So, what to do? Either we have some sort of uniform national I.D. or we have no control whatever of those who may have entered the country illegally.
Which situation do you prefer?
We already have a uniform national ID, and I have one. It is a United States Passport. Curiously, it does not contain my Social Security number, or a Service Identification number. Most states have similar (yet not identical) requirements to obtain a drivers license or a State issued photo identification. Having traveled internationally, I also have an international driving permit/license. Something that very few Americans realize is that the souvenir hospital "birth certificate" is NOT valid for a passport (or drivers license in most cases). It must be a Bureau of Vital Statistics certified copy. And it is not wise (or practical) to carry a birth certificate with you at all times. I believe that the requirements to have a valid passport to travel to Canada or Mexico in 2007-2008 will help document illegal migration and illegal immigration. I will never allow a National ID. Because they will tie it to the "Brady" laws and perform a national registration.
A lot harder to do than making a bank transfer or sending a money order. You're not going to give too many people your cash.
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.