Full Version: Real ID Act
Democrats in Congress appear to be acquiescing to the majority, due to lack of votes on the Real ID Act.
The bill would essentially require all states to adhere to what 41 states are already doing, requiring potential drivers to show proof of citizenship or legal status.
I see two problems here, one from each party. I have read some arguments by the minority party, but I'm more interested in what AD'ers think. Is this a law that causes more harm than it diminishes? Or is this a necessary step in the battle against illegal immigration.
Questions for debate:
Why should the Democrats oppose a seemingly simple bill to require licensed drivers be US citizens or have legal status in the US?
Why did the Republicans attach this bill to an $81 million funding bill for the war in Iraq? Why can't congress be required to adhere to a one bill-one vote rule, instead of being caught in an electoral quandary?
For international AD'ers: What restrictions are placed on driving privileges in your country, if any.....and are they effective?
QUOTE
A controversial bill that would require states to verify the citizenship or legal status of anyone applying for a drivers license will likely become law because Senate Democrats don't have the votes to stop it, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said Monday.
Aimed at illegal immigrants, the so-called Real ID Act is expected to be included in a final version of an $81 billion spending bill to fund the war in Iraq, according to Reid, D-Nev. House and Senate lawmakers begin negotiating a final version of the spending bill this week.
Aimed at illegal immigrants, the so-called Real ID Act is expected to be included in a final version of an $81 billion spending bill to fund the war in Iraq, according to Reid, D-Nev. House and Senate lawmakers begin negotiating a final version of the spending bill this week.
The bill would essentially require all states to adhere to what 41 states are already doing, requiring potential drivers to show proof of citizenship or legal status.
I see two problems here, one from each party. I have read some arguments by the minority party, but I'm more interested in what AD'ers think. Is this a law that causes more harm than it diminishes? Or is this a necessary step in the battle against illegal immigration.
Questions for debate:
Why should the Democrats oppose a seemingly simple bill to require licensed drivers be US citizens or have legal status in the US?
Why did the Republicans attach this bill to an $81 million funding bill for the war in Iraq? Why can't congress be required to adhere to a one bill-one vote rule, instead of being caught in an electoral quandary?
For international AD'ers: What restrictions are placed on driving privileges in your country, if any.....and are they effective?
Your second question answers your first. Maybe there are items in the spending bill, like giving churches more money for charity work, that don’t sit well with the Democrats.
The heart of the issue is still not being addressed: stop illegals at our borders. Maybe the Dem’s see this as a stop gap measure that more than likely won’t keep immigrants from pouring across our borders, if this law is already in 41 states than it’s already proven to be a minor deterrent if any.
There was a thread on the one item one bill scenario and I think most outside the hill agree that’s the way it should work.
The heart of the issue is still not being addressed: stop illegals at our borders. Maybe the Dem’s see this as a stop gap measure that more than likely won’t keep immigrants from pouring across our borders, if this law is already in 41 states than it’s already proven to be a minor deterrent if any.
There was a thread on the one item one bill scenario and I think most outside the hill agree that’s the way it should work.
Why should the Democrats oppose a seemingly simple bill to require licensed drivers be US citizens or have legal status in the US?
Maybe because it is anything but simple? All good Libertarians should be opposing this also, not just Democrats. I blogged on this a bit here, Real ID Act of 2005, before the Act was officially introduced to the Senate (it was still in committee at the time).
My biggest beef with the Real ID Act is the increase of Federal power to fix a Federal problem at the burden and expense of the State.
In particular, the Feds will demand of the States:
I have no real problems with numbers 1, 2, 3, or 10. I do have problems with the remaining demands on the States.
(4) This demand is too vague. Obviously, it is the Feds who get to define ‘effective procedure’ and therefore is subject to change based on the way the political wind is blowing. More importantly, the vagueness leaves this open clause to later interpretation that may include us being forced to submit biometric information such as fingerprints, retinal scans, or even DNA.
(5) Ok, tell me you don’t have a problem with this one. I dare ya. The Feds want our full Social Security numbers tied to our driver’s license. There is absolutely no connection between my privilege to drive and my personal tax ID number. This is a disgusting seizure of Federal power. Further, this demands that the States resolve duplicate Social Security number submissions, at the expense of the State!
(6) Again, my problem with this is that the Feds are centralizing their authority at the expense of the States. I have little problem if States want to voluntarily share their driver’s license databases with other states. I am upset when the Feds think they need to get their hands in this.
(7) More burden and expense put on the State at the Feds’ request. The way I read this is the Feds are essentially saying to the State, ‘Hey States, I know we just set up this mammoth-sized new driver’s license program. You guys are going to need to obtain a hell of a lot more info on your drivers than you used. On top of that, you need to keep all that info secure. And on your dime. But you still have to answer to us.”
(8) I don’t even know what this means, so I’m against on principal.
(9) Even more burden and expense on the State.
Why did the Republicans attach this bill to an $81 million funding bill for the war in Iraq? Why can't congress be required to adhere to a one bill-one vote rule, instead of being caught in an electoral quandary?
It was my yellow-bellied Senator, Johnny Isakson, who introduced the House version of the Real ID Act to the Senate. Shame on you, Senator. You are justifying why I did not vote for you.
I honestly can’t figure out if this is cowardice on the part of the GOP or complete hubris for attaching this amendment to the emergency appropriations bill. As I told Senator Isakson in a recent letter, “I realize we have an immigration problem in this country and this Act intends to curb that. It is a flawed, misguided solution, however. Our immigration problems are at the federal level. Please do not pass those problems off on the states because some of your fellow representatives in Washington are too scared/beholden to supporters/passive to deal with the issue federally.”
Federal problem. State funded solutions. Increased Federal authority. Typical.
Maybe because it is anything but simple? All good Libertarians should be opposing this also, not just Democrats. I blogged on this a bit here, Real ID Act of 2005, before the Act was officially introduced to the Senate (it was still in committee at the time).
My biggest beef with the Real ID Act is the increase of Federal power to fix a Federal problem at the burden and expense of the State.
In particular, the Feds will demand of the States:
QUOTE
(1) Employ technology to capture digital images of identity source documents so that the images can be retained in electronic storage in a transferable format.
(2) Retain paper copies of source documents for a minimum of 7 years or images of source documents presented for a minimum of 10 years.
(3) Subject each person applying for a driver's license or identification card to mandatory facial image capture.
(4) Establish an effective procedure to confirm or verify a renewing applicant's information.
(5) Confirm with the Social Security Administration a social security account number presented by a person using the full social security account number. In the event that a social security account number is already registered to or associated with another person to which any State has issued a driver's license or identification card, the State shall resolve the discrepancy and take appropriate action.
(6) Refuse to issue a driver's license or identification card to a person holding a driver's license issued by another State without confirmation that the person is terminating or has terminated the driver's license.
(7) Ensure the physical security of locations where drivers' licenses and identification cards are produced and the security of document materials and papers from which drivers' licenses and identification cards are produced.
(8) Subject all persons authorized to manufacture or produce drivers' licenses and identification cards to appropriate security clearance requirements.
(9) Establish fraudulent document recognition training programs for appropriate employees engaged in the issuance of drivers' licenses and identification cards.
(10) Limit the period of validity of all driver's licenses and identification cards that are not temporary to a period that does not exceed 8 years. Real ID Act
(2) Retain paper copies of source documents for a minimum of 7 years or images of source documents presented for a minimum of 10 years.
(3) Subject each person applying for a driver's license or identification card to mandatory facial image capture.
(4) Establish an effective procedure to confirm or verify a renewing applicant's information.
(5) Confirm with the Social Security Administration a social security account number presented by a person using the full social security account number. In the event that a social security account number is already registered to or associated with another person to which any State has issued a driver's license or identification card, the State shall resolve the discrepancy and take appropriate action.
(6) Refuse to issue a driver's license or identification card to a person holding a driver's license issued by another State without confirmation that the person is terminating or has terminated the driver's license.
(7) Ensure the physical security of locations where drivers' licenses and identification cards are produced and the security of document materials and papers from which drivers' licenses and identification cards are produced.
(8) Subject all persons authorized to manufacture or produce drivers' licenses and identification cards to appropriate security clearance requirements.
(9) Establish fraudulent document recognition training programs for appropriate employees engaged in the issuance of drivers' licenses and identification cards.
(10) Limit the period of validity of all driver's licenses and identification cards that are not temporary to a period that does not exceed 8 years. Real ID Act
I have no real problems with numbers 1, 2, 3, or 10. I do have problems with the remaining demands on the States.
(4) This demand is too vague. Obviously, it is the Feds who get to define ‘effective procedure’ and therefore is subject to change based on the way the political wind is blowing. More importantly, the vagueness leaves this open clause to later interpretation that may include us being forced to submit biometric information such as fingerprints, retinal scans, or even DNA.
(5) Ok, tell me you don’t have a problem with this one. I dare ya. The Feds want our full Social Security numbers tied to our driver’s license. There is absolutely no connection between my privilege to drive and my personal tax ID number. This is a disgusting seizure of Federal power. Further, this demands that the States resolve duplicate Social Security number submissions, at the expense of the State!
(6) Again, my problem with this is that the Feds are centralizing their authority at the expense of the States. I have little problem if States want to voluntarily share their driver’s license databases with other states. I am upset when the Feds think they need to get their hands in this.
(7) More burden and expense put on the State at the Feds’ request. The way I read this is the Feds are essentially saying to the State, ‘Hey States, I know we just set up this mammoth-sized new driver’s license program. You guys are going to need to obtain a hell of a lot more info on your drivers than you used. On top of that, you need to keep all that info secure. And on your dime. But you still have to answer to us.”
(8) I don’t even know what this means, so I’m against on principal.
(9) Even more burden and expense on the State.
Why did the Republicans attach this bill to an $81 million funding bill for the war in Iraq? Why can't congress be required to adhere to a one bill-one vote rule, instead of being caught in an electoral quandary?
It was my yellow-bellied Senator, Johnny Isakson, who introduced the House version of the Real ID Act to the Senate. Shame on you, Senator. You are justifying why I did not vote for you.
I honestly can’t figure out if this is cowardice on the part of the GOP or complete hubris for attaching this amendment to the emergency appropriations bill. As I told Senator Isakson in a recent letter, “I realize we have an immigration problem in this country and this Act intends to curb that. It is a flawed, misguided solution, however. Our immigration problems are at the federal level. Please do not pass those problems off on the states because some of your fellow representatives in Washington are too scared/beholden to supporters/passive to deal with the issue federally.”
Federal problem. State funded solutions. Increased Federal authority. Typical.
Why should the Democrats oppose a seemingly simple bill to require licensed drivers be US citizens or have legal status in the US?
Perhaps they realise the bill will not be very effective at it's intended purpose, which is presumably to monitor and control foreigners in the USA.
The controls only apply when someone applies for a US drivers' licence (if I've read it right). As an EU citizen, my British drivers licence covers me to drive in the USA. I have to present it if I hire (rent?) a car, and it gets photocopied and filed with my details. Unless I get ticketed, nobody else looks at it until I leave the country.
So I can drive anywhere in the continental USA and do anything I like, without anyone ever checking my driver's licence for ID - I would use my passprt if ever anyone asked to see it, and in three weeks in March 2003 (after terrorist paranoia, or reasonable security provisions, depending on your point of view) nobody ever did.
Unless you're going to require every foreign citizen, including tourists, to apply for a US licence before they sit behind a wheel (which doesn't appear to be in these proposals, and would cripple foreign tourism in the USA), all that these proposals WOULD achieve are the Big-Brother style negatives associated with monitoring your own citizens.
Why did the Republicans attach this bill to an $81 million funding bill for the war in Iraq? Why can't congress be required to adhere to a one bill-one vote rule, instead of being caught in an electoral quandary?
Well, I would have thought that they are trying to get it through the back door by attaching a stupid and potentially dangerous proposal to something that most sensible people wouldn't want to oppose
What restrictions are placed on driving privileges in your country, if any.....and are they effective?
To be quite honest, I'm not sure. The UK brought in photo ID licences several years ago, but they are only compulsory for new or renewed licences. Unless for some reason I have my licence removed (for some serious motoring offence I have no intention of committing) I could quite easily drive around on my current, paper-only licence until I am 70.
There is a "points system" for driving offences. Fixed penalty offences - for example driving slightly over the limit, add three penalty points to your licence as well as a fine. Other offences come with more points and higher fines. The points stay on your licence for five years from the date of the court case, and they are cumulative. Whenever anyone gets 12 or more points on their licence, they forfeit it for set period, usually a minimum of one year.
The rule are that you can drive a car with an automatic gearbox from age 16, and with a manual from age 17. The vast majority of cars are manual here - we have bendy roads and short distances that are better suited to them, not to mention expensive petrol that makes heavy automatics costlier to run - so mostly 17 is the important age.
Unlike some countries, we have to insure the car/driver combination, and not the car alone or driver alone. So a high risk person (men under 25, for example, or someone with many driving convictions or a bad accident record) will pay more whatever car they drive, and will pay EVEN more if they want to drive a larger, more powerful car. A low risk person - generally (in statistcial terms) a woman with a long clean record - will pay the least.
And all vehicles used on the road have to pass an annual MOT test which verifies that it is roadworthy (in terms of braking, indicators, mechanical soundness, etc - they don't check the stereo works!).
Also, you have to pay a "road fund licence", more commonly called road tax, which is related to the engine size of the vehicle.
As to how they work, some of the most common driving convictions, aside from speeding, are for driving while one or more of the MOT, insurance, or licence is invalid.
Generally, though, the UK roads are some of the safest in the world for drivers, passengers and pedestrians, despite being very busy and having higher top speed limits than the USA (70mph is standard on most dual carriageways). This may also be related to the compulsory wearing of seat belts, even in rear seats.
Perhaps they realise the bill will not be very effective at it's intended purpose, which is presumably to monitor and control foreigners in the USA.
The controls only apply when someone applies for a US drivers' licence (if I've read it right). As an EU citizen, my British drivers licence covers me to drive in the USA. I have to present it if I hire (rent?) a car, and it gets photocopied and filed with my details. Unless I get ticketed, nobody else looks at it until I leave the country.
So I can drive anywhere in the continental USA and do anything I like, without anyone ever checking my driver's licence for ID - I would use my passprt if ever anyone asked to see it, and in three weeks in March 2003 (after terrorist paranoia, or reasonable security provisions, depending on your point of view) nobody ever did.
Unless you're going to require every foreign citizen, including tourists, to apply for a US licence before they sit behind a wheel (which doesn't appear to be in these proposals, and would cripple foreign tourism in the USA), all that these proposals WOULD achieve are the Big-Brother style negatives associated with monitoring your own citizens.
Why did the Republicans attach this bill to an $81 million funding bill for the war in Iraq? Why can't congress be required to adhere to a one bill-one vote rule, instead of being caught in an electoral quandary?
Well, I would have thought that they are trying to get it through the back door by attaching a stupid and potentially dangerous proposal to something that most sensible people wouldn't want to oppose
What restrictions are placed on driving privileges in your country, if any.....and are they effective?
To be quite honest, I'm not sure. The UK brought in photo ID licences several years ago, but they are only compulsory for new or renewed licences. Unless for some reason I have my licence removed (for some serious motoring offence I have no intention of committing) I could quite easily drive around on my current, paper-only licence until I am 70.
There is a "points system" for driving offences. Fixed penalty offences - for example driving slightly over the limit, add three penalty points to your licence as well as a fine. Other offences come with more points and higher fines. The points stay on your licence for five years from the date of the court case, and they are cumulative. Whenever anyone gets 12 or more points on their licence, they forfeit it for set period, usually a minimum of one year.
The rule are that you can drive a car with an automatic gearbox from age 16, and with a manual from age 17. The vast majority of cars are manual here - we have bendy roads and short distances that are better suited to them, not to mention expensive petrol that makes heavy automatics costlier to run - so mostly 17 is the important age.
Unlike some countries, we have to insure the car/driver combination, and not the car alone or driver alone. So a high risk person (men under 25, for example, or someone with many driving convictions or a bad accident record) will pay more whatever car they drive, and will pay EVEN more if they want to drive a larger, more powerful car. A low risk person - generally (in statistcial terms) a woman with a long clean record - will pay the least.
And all vehicles used on the road have to pass an annual MOT test which verifies that it is roadworthy (in terms of braking, indicators, mechanical soundness, etc - they don't check the stereo works!).
Also, you have to pay a "road fund licence", more commonly called road tax, which is related to the engine size of the vehicle.
As to how they work, some of the most common driving convictions, aside from speeding, are for driving while one or more of the MOT, insurance, or licence is invalid.
Generally, though, the UK roads are some of the safest in the world for drivers, passengers and pedestrians, despite being very busy and having higher top speed limits than the USA (70mph is standard on most dual carriageways). This may also be related to the compulsory wearing of seat belts, even in rear seats.
Why should the Democrats oppose a seemingly simple bill to require licensed drivers be US citizens or have legal status in the US?
Why? For multiple reasons, many of which Jaime and others have already voiced. It's going to be a huge burden on the states, maybe even bigger than we know. Because if 41 states already supposedly have most of these requirements in place, I'd argue they aren't very effective in keeping DL's out of the hands of illegals. Of course that would mean even more draconian laws, to supposedly "fix" the problem.
Second, I can see a whole big can of worms being opened up on the matching the SS number to the person before issuing a drivers license. Look at that section again:
So, what happens if I go to the DMV to get my license renewed, or move to another state, and they tell me that my SS number has already been used? How do I prove that my SS number is really mine? And how long do I have to take a bus, taxi, or walk to work, until the state gets it figured out? Assuming they care about getting it figured out?
Why did the Republicans attach this bill to an $81 million funding bill for the war in Iraq? Why can't congress be required to adhere to a one bill-one vote rule, instead of being caught in an electoral quandary?
Cynical politics, that's why. Considering this last federal election, do you really think anyone running for President, or running for re-election as a senator, is going to vote against an Iraqi War funding bill, even if the reason he voted against it was due to the riders attached? He'd have that vote used against him in everycampaign commercial made by the opposition, fair or not.
Congress will never go to a one-bill, one-vote rule because it's not in their best interest. Especially for the one's that control the funding. They can use this tactic to extract federal dollars for their home states or districts, and not have the embarassment of having to have the bill and it's blatent pork status read out on the floor before a vote. If that ever happened, it might actually reign in spending, and that won't happen as long as they can bribe their constituents with make work projects that bring home the federal dollars.
Why? For multiple reasons, many of which Jaime and others have already voiced. It's going to be a huge burden on the states, maybe even bigger than we know. Because if 41 states already supposedly have most of these requirements in place, I'd argue they aren't very effective in keeping DL's out of the hands of illegals. Of course that would mean even more draconian laws, to supposedly "fix" the problem.
Second, I can see a whole big can of worms being opened up on the matching the SS number to the person before issuing a drivers license. Look at that section again:
QUOTE
Confirm with the Social Security Administration a social security account number presented by a person using the full social security account number. In the event that a social security account number is already registered to or associated with another person to which any State has issued a driver's license or identification card, the State shall resolve the discrepancy and take appropriate action.
So, what happens if I go to the DMV to get my license renewed, or move to another state, and they tell me that my SS number has already been used? How do I prove that my SS number is really mine? And how long do I have to take a bus, taxi, or walk to work, until the state gets it figured out? Assuming they care about getting it figured out?
Why did the Republicans attach this bill to an $81 million funding bill for the war in Iraq? Why can't congress be required to adhere to a one bill-one vote rule, instead of being caught in an electoral quandary?
Cynical politics, that's why. Considering this last federal election, do you really think anyone running for President, or running for re-election as a senator, is going to vote against an Iraqi War funding bill, even if the reason he voted against it was due to the riders attached? He'd have that vote used against him in everycampaign commercial made by the opposition, fair or not.
Congress will never go to a one-bill, one-vote rule because it's not in their best interest. Especially for the one's that control the funding. They can use this tactic to extract federal dollars for their home states or districts, and not have the embarassment of having to have the bill and it's blatent pork status read out on the floor before a vote. If that ever happened, it might actually reign in spending, and that won't happen as long as they can bribe their constituents with make work projects that bring home the federal dollars.
Why should the Democrats oppose a seemingly simple bill to require licensed drivers be US citizens or have legal status in the US?
Perhaps because it isn't simple? The simple version of the bill would ask states to require proof of citizenship before issuing a DL. That is a reasonable mandate which doesn't require a lot of funding. The rider that got attached here is yet another unfunded mandate from Congress that will continue to burden state coffers. I don't have a problem with the concept of the legislation, its the details of this one that I have a real problem with. I have no issue with restricting drivers' licenses to qualified citizens of this country. Driving is a priviledge, not a right. And unless you're paying taxes for the highways you get to drive on, imo you shouldn't get to drive on them. But this bill goes about it the wrong way entirely.
Why did the Republicans attach this bill to an $81 million funding bill for the war in Iraq? Why can't congress be required to adhere to a one bill-one vote rule, instead of being caught in an electoral quandary?
Because that's the way of the world in Congress these days, and has been since I can remember. Pork is unabashedly bi-partisan, sadly.
Doc
Perhaps because it isn't simple? The simple version of the bill would ask states to require proof of citizenship before issuing a DL. That is a reasonable mandate which doesn't require a lot of funding. The rider that got attached here is yet another unfunded mandate from Congress that will continue to burden state coffers. I don't have a problem with the concept of the legislation, its the details of this one that I have a real problem with. I have no issue with restricting drivers' licenses to qualified citizens of this country. Driving is a priviledge, not a right. And unless you're paying taxes for the highways you get to drive on, imo you shouldn't get to drive on them. But this bill goes about it the wrong way entirely.
Why did the Republicans attach this bill to an $81 million funding bill for the war in Iraq? Why can't congress be required to adhere to a one bill-one vote rule, instead of being caught in an electoral quandary?
Because that's the way of the world in Congress these days, and has been since I can remember. Pork is unabashedly bi-partisan, sadly.
Doc
Questions for debate:
Why should the Democrats oppose a seemingly simple bill to require licensed drivers be US citizens or have legal status in the US?
Why did the Republicans attach this bill to an $81 million funding bill for the war in Iraq? Why can't congress be required to adhere to a one bill-one vote rule, instead of being caught in an electoral quandary?
For international AD'ers: What restrictions are placed on driving privileges in your country, if any.....and are they effective?
[/quote]
I don't know about Democrats, but I oppose the bill because a driver's license is not getting citizenship or a visa. It's a driver's license, and it should be issued to anybody who is capable of passing the tests required to obtain them.
You could take this many different directions by requiring a valid visa to obtain an education, or medical care, or even legal counsel. How about bank accounts, or owning property?
I am an "international AD'er" who lives in Japan, and they require a valid visa, place of residence, and several other forms that I have forgotten what they were.
What effect this has had is unknown because these requirements have been in place for probably as long as they have been issuing driver's licenses. I'd guess that it would keep illegal aliens from having licenses, but then, you also have to have a valid visa and register your place of residence with city hall before you can get a car registered in your name. They are very strict about visas, unless they don't want to be strict, such as in the case of special visas for "entertainers" or 'prostitutes' if you want to call a spade a spade.
In what is very uncharacteriscally truthful for Japanese bureaucracy, the local city hall requires all aliens who wish to live in the city to register the pertinent information at the "Alien Resistration" counter.
Why should the Democrats oppose a seemingly simple bill to require licensed drivers be US citizens or have legal status in the US?
Why did the Republicans attach this bill to an $81 million funding bill for the war in Iraq? Why can't congress be required to adhere to a one bill-one vote rule, instead of being caught in an electoral quandary?
For international AD'ers: What restrictions are placed on driving privileges in your country, if any.....and are they effective?
[/quote]
I don't know about Democrats, but I oppose the bill because a driver's license is not getting citizenship or a visa. It's a driver's license, and it should be issued to anybody who is capable of passing the tests required to obtain them.
You could take this many different directions by requiring a valid visa to obtain an education, or medical care, or even legal counsel. How about bank accounts, or owning property?
I am an "international AD'er" who lives in Japan, and they require a valid visa, place of residence, and several other forms that I have forgotten what they were.
What effect this has had is unknown because these requirements have been in place for probably as long as they have been issuing driver's licenses. I'd guess that it would keep illegal aliens from having licenses, but then, you also have to have a valid visa and register your place of residence with city hall before you can get a car registered in your name. They are very strict about visas, unless they don't want to be strict, such as in the case of special visas for "entertainers" or 'prostitutes' if you want to call a spade a spade.
In what is very uncharacteriscally truthful for Japanese bureaucracy, the local city hall requires all aliens who wish to live in the city to register the pertinent information at the "Alien Resistration" counter.
Why should the Democrats oppose a seemingly simple bill to require licensed drivers be US citizens or have legal status in the US?
First reason the Democrats will oppose such a measure is because it came from the Republicans.
I am not sure of why they would oppose it as a party other then that. It is not like the Democrats don't have their own history of unfunded mandates, unrelated items added to bills, expanding federal control over state issues, etc.
However, This Bill should be opposed.
For one, it has no business being attached to an emergency spending bill. The Republicans have been in power for over 4 years and have done next to nothing to address illegal immigration. The problem is not new, and it is certainly not dramatically worse then say 5 years ago. So, based on the majority parties past actions (or lack thereof) this issue is not an emergency.
This issue has NOTHING to do with the war in Iraq, so it has no business being attached to an emergency spending bill for that war.
We really need to work on the "One Bill, One Subject" concept. It is ok to amend a bill if the amendment is directly related to the subject (like the bulk of the amendments the Democrats put forward to try to attach to the recent Bankruptcy bill). But attaching completely unrelated items just muddies the waters, hides pork, and gets things passed that could not pass on their own. It is a form of deception and blackmail and should not be allowed.
This bill should also be opposed because it gives more authority to the federal government over state issues (and the federal government doesn't really have a great track record of properly using such authority), and it is yet another unfunded mandate, requiring the states to enact a multitude of policies and procedures, many of which cost money, without funding them. Most states are on the verge of budgetary disaster as it is, this will just add to that problem.
The basic concept is sound. Driving is a privilege, failure to properly enter the country is a violation of the law. Those who violate the law tend to loose privileges. However, the actual law proposed is a mess.
QUOTE
Why did the Republicans attach this bill to an $81 million funding bill for the war in Iraq? Why can't congress be required to adhere to a one bill-one vote rule, instead of being caught in an electoral quandary?
You could give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they did this to speed up the passage and institution of this program, but I won't.
IMHO. the Republicans did this because it makes it harder for people to oppose. Especially those, in closely divided districts who are paranoid about being seen as anti-war (and their vote against the spending bill because of this amendment would surly be used to show "their opposition to the war", and "failure to support American troops" by the opposition in their next re-election bid, regardless of the truth of the matter).
There is also the issue of the Whitehouse being rather soft on immigration issues. So the possibility exists that they did this to ensure the President would not veto it.
However, I think the correct answer is the second one.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.