2
38

[–] 11699959? 2 points 38 points (+40|-2) ago 

Yep. If they do this I'm gone. I will take the road of Prime Minister David Williams and go for immunity and private self determination under international law. This will drive me and my family from US citizenship. I. Shit. You. Not.

0
40

[–] 11700549? 0 points 40 points (+40|-0) ago 

However, as Ron Paul points out, “this bill would give DACA recipients a 3-year renewable legal status while forcing a biometric National ID card on virtually everyone else.”

...

Fuck DACA

0
6

[–] samuraichococat 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

yet more rights stricken from citizens and handed to illegals... im with @ Ho-Lee-Fuk on this one

0
1

[–] fusir 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

It might be a reason to give them citizenship. If citizens are treated worse than illegals...

What if the dems are treating us shitty on purpose to make us citizenize our illegal overlords so they can do the one thing the dems actually care about, vote.

5
-1

[–] karmatic 5 points -1 points (+4|-5) ago 

Ron Paul is wrong.

The "national ID requirement" that this bill says is simple. If you want to use ID to work, the ID has to be only issued to legals. It doesn't create any new national IDs. It explicitly states that it doesn't permit national IDs.

Far from being a national ID, it simply says that if you want to work, the ID (that is already needed to work) has to be proof of legal status. So, IDs from sanctuary states don't work anymore.

I don't like the DACA part, but the rest of the bill is very good.

1
18

[–] karmatic 1 points 18 points (+19|-1) ago 

Fake news is fake news.

‘‘(A) NO NATIONAL IDENTIFICATION CARD.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize, directly or indirectly, the issuance or use of national identification cards or the establishment of a national identification card.

The point of ID security is to stop illegals. "Sanctuary" states issue documents to illegals, and there is no requirement to carry national ID, so police can't generally check immigration status.

The courts have let the federal government require ID for worker verification, so the idea is to make standards for employment verification. If a document is easy to copy, you can't use it to work. If a document doesn't have a unique ID (so someone can't just get 6 of the same one), you can't use it to work. If it doesn't include biometrics (so an illegal can't steal your identity), you can't use it to work.

One of the problems we have is that illegals will steal someone's identity, then go get a passport in their name. Most people don't have a passport, so it doesn't get caught. They can use that to get (or forge) a SSN, go to work, and claim 10 dependents so the taxpayer gets the bill.

Facial recognition on the document itself lets you compare (for example) the passport photo to the driver license. If they don't match, it gets flagged, and they can figure out that someone's stealing your identity.

This is the point of REAL ID - internet verification (so you can detect stolen or duplicate documents), minimum security (so it can't be easily forged), biometrics (so they can't assume someone's identity), lawful status (since states issue documents to illegals). It was literally designed for the purpose of catching illegals. This law extends those same requirements to documents.

Yeah, if you work in California, and California issues drivers licenses to illegals, you have to have another form of ID (like a passport) to work. That's a good thing. Even more importantly, it requires employers to verify existing hires against the new rules, with the new documents.

This law doesn't require a national ID by any stretch of the imagination. Page 90, go read it.

For a document to be legal to work, it must be a passport or PR card, a immigrant work permit card, or any document designated as having a photo, being evidence of the right to work (only issued to legal workers), and meets minimum security requirements.

The bill also imposes some limits on family visas, creates a non-immigrant status for the parents of illegals (if sponsored, they don't get deported, but can't legally work), eliminates the diversity visa, makes it easier to revoke visas and share information on visas that have been revoked, lets the Department of State not bother to interview visa applicants they determine are ineligible, and lets the Secretary of Homeland Security revoke or refuse any visa he wants to if he thinks it's in the US security or foreign policy interests. The latter makes the courts less able to un-do things, as that was one of the issues the court took with the travel pause. Most importantly, it contains this gem:

JUDICIAL REVIEW.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, or any other habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of such title, no court shall have jurisdiction to review a decision by the Secretary of Homeland Security to refuse or revoke a visa, and no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any claim arising from, or any challenge to, such a refusal or revocation.

Congress can define jurisdiction, so when the US decides your visa is revoked, you're gone. No appeals, no passing go, go directly to deportation.

The law also makes spouses and children of drug traffickers ineligible for visas, adds criminal checks for diplomatic visas.

0
2

[–] 11702941? 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

What a stud... Thanks for this post ha ha. Glad the fake news was really bad. Now I feel better!

0
2

[–] physicscat 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Yeah, I looked through the bill and couldn't find a National ID either.

0
0

[–] patriot_biz 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

This is a good point. However, I wish our civilization - let's not say our government, because that's indulgent, - yes our civilization, I wish it were better at being responsible stewards for this type of information. Hot on the heels of the Snowdengate revelations, I'm concerned and skeptical of new tracking measures. I share the Tea Party concerns about illegal immigration and just wish there were better timing than this.

0
3

[–] eyeVoated 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

How does one do this? What are the consequences? What if thousands of families were to do this?

0
2

[–] 11702927? 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Wew. Now that is the question now isn't it. OK this is what I know and where I got it. From what I can tell it goes like this:

The US gov is not what we think. It is not a government at all. It is a corporation. Like wallmart. It was created to pay the bills of the bankrupt nation called the united States.

The constitution does not protect you because it is a contract. It is a contract that you never signed.

You can declare peace with all nations. Declare to federal judges and ??? That you invoke the right of self determination under international law. You then become a country and can gain immunjty. You never pay taxes. You can't be arrested or jailed. Really the only the gov could deal with you is to ignore you or kill you. I may start a sub devoted to this. There has been some interest.

Jewtube: Sarah Westall and Prime Minister David Williams interview. There are 4 of them now. If you cant find them ask me.

Also this website. http://nativeborncitizen.com/

https://www.countercurrents.org/hunt301107.htm

1
3

[–] SpecialtyPizza 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

Yeah I will actually leave. Fuck that shit.

0
23

[–] vastrightwing 0 points 23 points (+23|-0) ago 

What? Carrying an always on GPS+microphone+video camera isn't enough?

0
8

[–] beenaroundabit 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Not to mention persistent "DHCP" IP addresses from ISPs. Just long enough to gather "user enhancement" information.

0
2

[–] KikeFree 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

They don't need persistent IPs, their DHCP servers record your assigned IP whenever they change it anyway.

0
3

[–] weezkitty 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Not to mention some smartphones have fingerprint scanners right on their home buttons

0
1

[–] fl3x 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

My fellow U.S. Citizen who works in the Public Sector, but the Government needs Warrants and a number of sign-offs to spy on you using your phone. Think of all the sign-offs!

0
22

[–] Sosacms 0 points 22 points (+22|-0) ago 

Except for when voting.

0
0

[–] Lazmat 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

0
22

[–] NakatomiBaby 0 points 22 points (+22|-0) ago 

Go. Fuck. Yourselves.

0
14

[–] Blue333 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago 

We have to ask ourselves, what are the implications of a National ID card which contains "biometric" data.

What can be done with such data? Who owns the data? Who may gain access to the data if it's breached or compromised? What else may eventually be added to this "ID Card" - what other biometric data?

Could be a slippery slope and personally, I don't like the sound of it.

There are other ways to control illegals...we don't need National ID cards.

0
8

[–] 11700585? 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

You don't need the biometric part, you need a document delivered by the administration certifying that you're a citizen or a legal immigrant, that's all you need

With some anti counterfeiting printing on it like for bank notes, and anyone caught faking it it's up to 20 years, same deal

0
3

[–] Blue333 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Yeah anti counterfeiting being key...right now illegals steal IDs and file their tax returns in Jan...then the person who really owns the ID files later but who gets the return first? The first person to file (the illegal). And does the IRS catch this? No - not until it's too late and the illegal walks off with a fat return.

That's how inept our government is.

3
-1

[–] karmatic 3 points -1 points (+2|-3) ago 

You don't need the biometric part

Yes, you do. Identity thieves get documents issued in your name in other states, or a passport (if you don't have one already).

The biometric part lets them catch when someone other than you applies for a license or the like. If you move from one state to another, the face bone structure matches. If someone in another state impersonates you, the photos don't match, and the system flags it for review.

1
3

[–] karmatic 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago  (edited ago)

We have to ask ourselves, what are the implications of a National ID card

This bill does not create one, despite what people say.

What the bill does do is say that if a document doesn't prove legal status, then you can't use it. In other words, when you fill out the new hire form at work, you can't use an ID from a sanctuary state anymore.

The biometric data is required to make the documents more secure. One of the big scams now for identity theft is applying for a passport for someone who doesn't have one. The implication is that they can compare the face on your driver license to the face on your passport, so if an illegal tries to steal your identity they can't use your stolen identity to get a Passport, and your Passport to get a new SSN card and go work.

What can be done with such data?

Detect duplicate documents, since the biometrics on ID photos aren't too useful for much else. If you're accused of a crime and caught on a video camera, they can break it down to a few thousand people who match a similar facial profile, then exclude people with different skin colour and height, then break it down to the area the crime happened in.

In other words, it's not good for looking at everyone at the superbowl and identifying them, but if you are looking for one specific guy, you can flag people who look like him coming in. It's good for matching, not too good for figuring someone out just from facial scans.

Who owns the data?

The States, since the States are the ones who issue the ID. This bill doesn't create any federal national IDs.

Who may gain access to the data if it's breached or compromised?

The same people who gain access if the DMV is breached now.

What else may eventually be added to this "ID Card" - what other biometric data?

The point of biometrics on ID is to keep people from impersonating you. As such, it's only useful when it's things like approximate weight, height, race, etc.

I had my identity stolen, and someone was arrested for drug trafficing. Fortunately, she was a 50 year old black woman. I was not. Biometrics made it much easier to clear my name. Otherwise, I'd have had a very hard time proving that I wasn't her.

Could be a slippery slope and personally, I don't like the sound of it.

The ID cards already mostly contain biometrics. What this law says is that if you don't meet certain requirements, you can't use the ID to work.

As an example, I have an AZ Driver License. AZ doesn't comply with REAL ID (which requires proof of address, proof of lawful status, and internet verification of lost, stolen, or forged documents). My driver license contains the text "Not valid for Federal Identification", and won't work to fly after 2020. I can replace it online, and there is no verification. It expires in 2049.

I can get a voluntary travel ID that is REAL ID compliant. I have to go in person, and they have shorter expiration dates.

Under this law, I can use my passport to fly or work, but not my AZ Driver License. A voluntary travel ID is only issued to legal workers, and meets the security requirements, so I could use it to work.

0
0

[–] patriot_biz 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

That's a good write up, I'm just skeptical that the existing police forces shall responsibly use the information in the way that you imply, effectively and in a way that will benefit the average citizen.

0
0

[–] Blue333 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Thanks for the explanation! I suppose if it has some basic info like fingerprints or what not it's not too bad... My fear however, is that we'll get to a point where cards like these will have chips in them to record behavior...in other words...they can be and will need to be scanned for purchase of goods, gas, when traveling, when working, etc...essentially recording everyone's comings and goings. I worry about something like that being deployed in the future. Maybe I'm just paranoid.

1
5

[–] SChalice 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Yes this is the GOP 'solution' to immigration. Get all you idiots to give up your civl rights in the name of racism and shillery.

YOU ARE FUCKING IDIOTS!

0
3

[–] weezkitty 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

It doesn't matter if it's a left boot or a right boot stomping on your face. Both sides of the government try to take our rights.

3
-2

[–] karmatic 3 points -2 points (+1|-3) ago 

READ THE BILL, IDIOT.

It doesn't create any ID. It doesn't federalize any ID.

It states that if you want to work, the employer isn't permitted to accept ID that is issued to illegals. So, if you live in a state that issues drivers licenses to illegals (like WA or CA), then you have to get and use a passport to work. Your employer has to use e-Verify, and has to e-Verify everyone already working.

This isn't getting rid of any civil rights. It's fucking over illegals.

5
-4

3
5

[–] SHIVASHIVASHIVA 3 points 5 points (+8|-3) ago 

edit: israel is using its puppet politicians in congress to quietly push bill.....

1
2

[–] karmatic 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

No.

Soros is trying to kill the bill. With the exception of the DACA adults, this is everything a hard line conservative wants in an immigration bill. Visa revocations upon demand, exempted from court review. Sanctuary IDs being illegal for work, increased immigration enforcement, a permanent ban on DACA sponsors getting sponsored for citizenship, etc.

This would do more to reduce the illegal population than almost anything else.

0
1

[–] SHIVASHIVASHIVA 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

We don’t need it either way, we already know where and who the illegal invaders are, israel is the problem.

0
4

[–] RedNeckPizzaMan 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Well I have been planning to live off the grid....if this bill passes...it seems like a good time to jump off the gird

load more comments ▼ (32 remaining)