National ID card; Immigration and Freedom
The solution to the Immigration problem is to get rid of Welfare including Social Security (overtime), not to impose more anti-freedom idea such as National ID cards and other travel restrictions.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
The answer is as DB and several others have said to simply deny welfare of any type to illegals, I'd prefer no welfare to anyone, but definitely illegals.
Freedom of travel for any individual is a natural right of a human being and a significant measure of a free man with liberty to self direct.
I am not as jaded.
It doesn't define the requirements and the enforcement is non-existent, except likely for political reasons. The fact that the existing system is rotten does not negate the need for a rational system. Allowing the bureaucracy to interpret laws far outside the rational intent, and letting the executive branch decide not to enforce them at all are evidence of a system designed to fail.
Those visiting this country on visa need the ID card. Further, that issued ID to immigrants should also act as their debit card, drivers license and green card. It should lose or change color and cease to function when it expires.
Proving citizenship BEFORE issuing welfare benefits would help. Believe it or not it was forbidden (under Nappy) to ask citizenship when applying for welfare in Arizona. I'm not sure if thats still the case, I hope not.
Just saying...
However, the visa or passport or other documentation upon entry does allow those in the country to know that a person who has shown such documentation is here with honorable intentions, and thereby can reasonably be expected to engage in value for value exchanges. Those who do not do that much courtesy to the country they are emigrating to should reasonably be assumed to be here with dishonorable intent. In that case, it becomes impossible from a practical standpoint for the average citizen to know whether the immigrant is honorable or criminal. At that point, trade between individuals is diminished, and the citizenry is sacrificed to the immigrant.
Source?
You can also use a newly issued Passport that includes the facial recognition specs on you photo.
Can you be more specific than "news for the last several years?" Maybe a link?
Also, how will this work with my Clear pass? In Denver airport, I breeze through TSA with no ID at all required; just my boarding pass. I put down my index finger at the Clear station (a private company) to confirm my ID, then buzz over to the TSA Precheck lane, and I'm through toot sweet. No ID examined, just my boarding pass. Are you telling me that Clear will go out of business Jan 1st? Because they are planning to expand in 2016 into several more airports.
http://www.dhs.gov/real-id-public-faqs
This was the assertion in the OP that triggered my question:
"You need the Gold Star to travel on any TSA regulated transportation starting Jan of 16."
From the link you provided:
"Will TSA accept identity documents other than driver’s licenses?
Yes. TSA currently accepts other forms of identity documents such as a passport or Permanent Residency Card and will continue to do so.
For more information on acceptable forms of identification for boarding aircraft, please see TSA’s website (http://www.tsa.gov/traveler-informati...)"
From that link:
"dentification
Adult passengers 18 and over must show valid identification at the airport checkpoint in order to travel.
Driver's licenses or other state photo identity cards issued by Department of Motor Vehicles (or equivalent)
U.S. passport
U.S. passport card
DHS trusted traveler cards (Global Entry, NEXUS, SENTRI, FAST)
U.S. military ID (active duty or retired military and their dependents, and DoD civilians)
Permanent resident card
Border crossing card
DHS-designated enhanced driver's license
Airline or airport-issued ID (if issued under a TSA-approved security plan)
Federally recognized, tribal-issued photo ID
HSPD-12 PIV card
Foreign government-issued passport
Canadian provincial driver's license or Indian and Northern Affairs Canada card
Transportation Worker Identification Credential"
So the initial assertion is in fact false; TSA accepts a variety of IDs and will continue to do so. Also, there is no mention on either page of facial recognition standards; that assertion is also not supported.
How does government get away with its shenanigans? An unenlightened public. It is tragically ironic that while we have the most potential for information and connectivity ever in the entirety of human history, yet the most important things are those least discussed.
Making people ignorant is easy.
Helping people learn is difficult.
Its not my decision to make the laws, so you have nothing to worry about. If you were born here, you are a citizen here. Look at the problems its resulted in, however.
It's the natural progression of governments, this constant tightening.
We all get voter registration cards. A simple data check for duplicate voter registration card numbers and addresses would get rid of a lot of the fraud and then make it possible to stop the soft money artists from making a fraudulent prone system a joke.
On the other hand you can cry rights rights rights while the left left left is sticking it to you big time.
What's the point of unprotected rights?
NOTHING
Which brings us to where we are now.
1. Speed up the legal immigration process - X10.
2. Secure the border -- Really Secure it!
3. Getting rid of all illegals is too complicated. Only known criminals to be deported. Who cares where. (A South American Jungle would do.)
4. When an illegal is caught they should be made to study the requirements to become a citizen and then apply.
5. Get rid of welfare. Private charities to take over.
If these five principles are applied the problem will, over time, solve itself.
I agree with the sped up immigration process. Thats said, the US should establish in their embassies a computer network linked to the US and they should validate and qualify any and all who wish to enter our country. More, the host country SHOULD provide proper documentation, electronic or otherwise, to speed up the process.
Secure the border- absolutely. Defended and patrolled by the US National Guard of each state in concert with civilian border patrol.
Get rid of the illegals - yes, its not that complicated. Wait for them to use the system - welfare, medical, school, etc.. and expel them as you find them. No child left behind. The 14th Amendment wasn't written for illegal aliens or invaders, it was to ensure freed slaves received the citizenship they were entitled to.
No argument about welfare. Churches in this country should be doing a lot more. In fact, they are actually encouraged by the government not to do anything. I'll tell you about my experience with this if you like.
I agree that people want to immigrate here because we are a relatively free and prosperous nation. Also because of our welfare state (which needs to stop). But that should not justify "illegal immigration." Immigration and Illegal Immigration are commonly confused in today's media. Will we ever get past that simple distinction?
It seems to me that most of the article argues in favor of immigration. I couldn't agree more. Immigration should be easy. But I also affirm a people's right to say "no more visitors, please." I disagree with that strategy, but I affirm their prerogative. Also, I affirm the importance of a nation to regulate, control, understand who is coming in to immigrate (legally). The regulation should be light, in my opinion, but it should be there. We have to know who is coming in, because the job of the Government is to protect us against those who would take away our rights. It cannot stop those people if it doesn't even see them enter. It is important that we are able to control the border.
And voting in the USA is not a "natural right" for just anyone on the Globe. It is a civil right reserved to USA citizens. Especially today, when it is clear that we are plagued with millions of illegal immigrants, I don't see why we wouldn't want people to prove their citizenship in order to exercise the privilege of that citizenship.
Therefore, "the people" do NOT have the right to say "no more visitors." And that is simply because they do not own the city, state, or country. There is no such thing as collective ownership. Shared ownership, like a marriage or corporation, yes. That's still private. But a country only has the right to restrict entry in favor of self defense, such as to keep out criminals or elements from enemy nations.
Such restrictions cannot be based upon whims such as race or religion, national origin, politics, or a desire to stay the population thy are. Those criteria are fine for a private business or residence, but not for a government.
Remember, rights are only freedoms to act, and they do not interfere with others rights. If your "right" prevents another from exercising one of their rights, such as freedom of movement or self determination, who to hire, or where to live, then it's not a right.
"A country only has the right to restrict entry in favor of self defense." Okay, I agree! But how can this be done when we don't even see people coming across, much less to we know who they are? Even if we decide not to limit immigration at all, we at least ought to know who is immigrating. Control it, even if we don't try to stop it.
Your last point is what bothers me every time I discuss this. I have a right to my private property. This is as fundamental as my right to life. You say man has a right to move freely? Even over my private property? You see, you are the one introducing a right that conflicts with my right. When someone's right to travel, right to "self-determine where to live," contradicts my right to private property, who wins? I suggest there are no contradictions between rights, and that the "right to travel" is not fundamental. A man has the right to leave a country (to deny this would be to condone slavery), but that does not translate into the right to trespass where he is not welcome.
They can agree to allow Alice's mother to come and live there, permanently, and get an extension added to the house to make her comfortable. They can allow Bob's deadbeat cousin to come and stay there briefly while he's looking for his next job. They can disallow Alice's creepy ex from entering the property at all.
This is the concept of collective ownership. Property which is public when viewed from within the family, but private when viewed from outside the family. A form of public property at the scale of family.
A country is the exact same idea, except scaled up to a larger population unit. A country's population has a sovereign right to decide who can come, and who can stay. Any objection to such sovereignty or ownership on a national scale must also apply to sovereignty on a family scale. If a family has a right to exclude unwelcome entrants from its property, then so must a country.
There can be agreement among a family unit, there can be no universal agreement among a nation, and so you end up with the tyranny of the majority when a nation makes such decisions.
What about the farmer who wishes to hire someone from across the border? Why would the collective have the ability to restrict his right of choosing who to hire?
This would remove the head from the monster that is progressivism and go a long way to restoring financial sanity.
On the other hand, as we build medical systems which interconnect we are continually faced with the problem of whether this "Jim Smith" is the same as this other "Jim Smith". Failure to properly match records can have life-threatening consequences.
Some of our systems are in countries which do have a national id number, most notably Malaysia which uses a smart MYKAD card for pretty much everything -- passport, banking, healthcare etc.
This makes building reliable health care systems much easier. It's also a privacy nightmare. Would I want to be carrying one of these cards? I'm not sure.
These issues don't just come up in national linkages. Our most typical issue is a doctor's practice computer system, our laboratory computer system and a reference laboratory's computer system. All of this takes place at the same office.
We usually insist on them using the same ID's in our system as the practice system uses but then they put in a new practice system that changes all the numbers!
It seems that the records are not for the reasons stated. I don't think they have a damn thing to do with my health or my Dr's ability to treat what ever symptoms I present.
The numbers referenced on your computer system are primarily for Medicair/Aid, Insurance, and other billing and for reporting.
But accurately identifying patients is an ongoing problem in our health system.
Just this morning a Histology email list I am on was embroiled in a discussion of a new NIH requirement that they randomize the id numbers on slides to protect privacy. This, of course, runs afoul of other regulations requiring two ID's on every sample and good medical practice designed to prevent sample mix-up.
When I get blood drawn at Quest, they label the tubes with my name and show them to me so that I can verify that it is, indeed, my name on the blood that just came out of my veins.