One or Two Things About the Immigration Bill
Published by BG on Sunday, May 20, 2007 at 12:17 PM.I can't pretend for a minute that I know enough about this specific immigration bill to develop a full-fledged opinion. In most cases, however, the polarization of our political discourse tends to cause a degenerative discussion holding one of these two positions: either illegal immigrants are just here to make an honest living, or they're here because they wish to weaken the fabric of American society by draining our taxpayer resources and/or engaging in other insidious activities that will do us direct or indirect harm.
Obviously, neither scenario is exactly right, although it's safe to say that case studies for either scenario exist.
So assume for a minute that I have no opinion on this topic that fits into a little box of "bleeding heart liberal" or "xenophobic conservative." Instead, I want to read through the tea leaves of what the bill proposes, and what that generally portends for the rest of us.
Hugh Hewitt Interviews Tony Snow on the Immigration Bill
Alright, so it's not going to be a bill designed to combat terror. Cynically speaking, since this administration seems to view terrorism as a military problem, developing immigration reform into a bureaucratic/law enforcement solution to terrorists entering the homeland isn't a high priority. Besides, if they were to incorporate intelligence-gathering ideas into this bill, it would give a Democratic Congress an up-or-down vote on the types of things this administration is already doing under their purported AUMF/Article II justification.
But forget cynicism. If this isn't designed with terrorism in mind, what are the goals?
If they've broken the law? Okay, so long as a parking ticket (Christ, I can just imagine an enraged O'Reilly screaming, "BUT THEY SHOULDN'T BE PARKING HERE!") is treated differently than a B&E, for instance.
Continuous employment? All right, so long as seasonal migrant workers aren't penalized for the two months between picking blueberries in Michigan and apples in Washington. It's a matter of degrees.
English language and culture? Okay, I guess, although they shouldn't have to name four of six characters on Friends to get their papers.
What'd I miss?
"If they do not provide, do not present themselves for a tamper-proof ID that has biometric information, submit themselves to background checks, they are not eligible for regularization."
This is where the little Libertarian that lives in my head starts to go apoplectic. A supporter of this bill would try to talk him off the ledge by saying:
But BG, these guys are already breaking the law by being here! Shouldn't we equip our law enforcement with the tools they need to keep track of these guys? If they want to be here, they're going to have to play by our rules, right?
Which, of course, is usually followed by the question:
If they aren't doing anything wrong, what do they have to worry about?
First it's immigrants, then it's the citizenry, and if you think that's not possible I encourage you to read a few news articles on the push for the Real ID:
News-Leader.com | Updates - News
It's actually kind of astonishing to see that it's Conservatives that are the biggest advocates of this idea, as they've traditionally been the party that argues vehemently that the states know better than the feds how to take care of their own citizenry.
Ultimately, this was proposed because a few of the 9/11 hijackers had proper, state-issued identification. Rather, that was why we were told this was a just and necessary law. What it does is establish a federal justification to track its citizenry, plain and simple. Think about it for a second - let's assume these are simply just suggestions for a federal standard for what information a drivers' license can contain. Don't we have those already? Isn't there a burden of proof when you go to the DMV that you are who you say you are?
What good then is this Real ID law if it's not specifically designed to develop standardizations for the data contained on the readable magnetic strips on each and every drivers' license across the nation? If you're a cop making a traffic stop, can't you figure out in five minutes on the radio or your onboard computer whether or not the license and registration you've been presented are fakes? Can't you, as a welfare office or potential employer, make sure a $25 background check matches the license number you've been given?
Sure you can. Doesn't matter which state's license you're presented. What the government wants is the ability to recognize patterns of behavior in its citizenry in order to deter potentially dangerous situations. This, of course, sounds fine and dandy except they're not just watching guys named "Mohammed" here, and our government has a less-than-noble history being trusted not to spy on Americans without warrants.
Anyway, I'm not trying to say that this push, as it exists right now, is a scary and fearful Big Brother sort of thing. But it's getting there. We're growing more and more comfortable with governmental intrusion into our lives, giving up privacy in the interest of making sure these evil bad guys don't ever hurt us again. It's a short leap from readable magnetic strips to demanding the same biometric information we're asking of the immigrants, and all it's going to take is a school shooter buying a gun with a fake Real ID to get us there. As the burden of proof goes up on the citizens, the ability to track and assemble huge databases of information on these same citizens also rises.
It's not just "them" the government's trying to keep an eye on. Someday it'll be members of the ACLU or PETA, then it'll be a high-tech post-Watergate RNC being watched. It's the absolute height of absurd fealty to assume our government is only after "them" and can be trusted never to look at what they've been collecting on "us." Privacy, to me, isn't a post-9/11 issue - it's a post-Information Age issue. Just because we have the ability to collect, store and analyze vasts banks of information in an incredibly effective and agile way doesn't mean we should.
Obviously, neither scenario is exactly right, although it's safe to say that case studies for either scenario exist.
So assume for a minute that I have no opinion on this topic that fits into a little box of "bleeding heart liberal" or "xenophobic conservative." Instead, I want to read through the tea leaves of what the bill proposes, and what that generally portends for the rest of us.
Hugh Hewitt Interviews Tony Snow on the Immigration Bill
SNOW: But if you’re asking me, Hugh, if it’s going to be possible using immigration law to find out whether somebody has not previously broken the law, whether they are going to commit an act of terror, whether they are an American citizen or not? No, that’s not going to be what immigration law is about.
Alright, so it's not going to be a bill designed to combat terror. Cynically speaking, since this administration seems to view terrorism as a military problem, developing immigration reform into a bureaucratic/law enforcement solution to terrorists entering the homeland isn't a high priority. Besides, if they were to incorporate intelligence-gathering ideas into this bill, it would give a Democratic Congress an up-or-down vote on the types of things this administration is already doing under their purported AUMF/Article II justification.
But forget cynicism. If this isn't designed with terrorism in mind, what are the goals?
SNOW: Well, they would be eligible for regularization only if they met a whole series of standards. If they have broken the law while they’re here, they’re not eligible. If they do not remain continuously employed, they’re not eligible for regularization. If they do not provide, do not present themselves for a tamper-proof ID that has biometric information, submit themselves to background checks, they are not eligible for regularization. If they do not master the English language and culture, they’re not eligible for regularization.
If they've broken the law? Okay, so long as a parking ticket (Christ, I can just imagine an enraged O'Reilly screaming, "BUT THEY SHOULDN'T BE PARKING HERE!") is treated differently than a B&E, for instance.
Continuous employment? All right, so long as seasonal migrant workers aren't penalized for the two months between picking blueberries in Michigan and apples in Washington. It's a matter of degrees.
English language and culture? Okay, I guess, although they shouldn't have to name four of six characters on Friends to get their papers.
What'd I miss?
"If they do not provide, do not present themselves for a tamper-proof ID that has biometric information, submit themselves to background checks, they are not eligible for regularization."
This is where the little Libertarian that lives in my head starts to go apoplectic. A supporter of this bill would try to talk him off the ledge by saying:
But BG, these guys are already breaking the law by being here! Shouldn't we equip our law enforcement with the tools they need to keep track of these guys? If they want to be here, they're going to have to play by our rules, right?
Which, of course, is usually followed by the question:
If they aren't doing anything wrong, what do they have to worry about?
First it's immigrants, then it's the citizenry, and if you think that's not possible I encourage you to read a few news articles on the push for the Real ID:
News-Leader.com | Updates - News
A resolution passed Thursday night claims that Congress’ Real ID Act unconstitutionally infringes on civil rights and liberties by setting federal standards for driver’s licenses. The Real ID Act was enacted after federal officials learned that some of the people involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks had legitimate driver’s licenses.
The act requires states to verify documents proving that driver’s license applicants are U.S. citizens and issue identification cards that meet federal standards.
It's actually kind of astonishing to see that it's Conservatives that are the biggest advocates of this idea, as they've traditionally been the party that argues vehemently that the states know better than the feds how to take care of their own citizenry.
Ultimately, this was proposed because a few of the 9/11 hijackers had proper, state-issued identification. Rather, that was why we were told this was a just and necessary law. What it does is establish a federal justification to track its citizenry, plain and simple. Think about it for a second - let's assume these are simply just suggestions for a federal standard for what information a drivers' license can contain. Don't we have those already? Isn't there a burden of proof when you go to the DMV that you are who you say you are?
What good then is this Real ID law if it's not specifically designed to develop standardizations for the data contained on the readable magnetic strips on each and every drivers' license across the nation? If you're a cop making a traffic stop, can't you figure out in five minutes on the radio or your onboard computer whether or not the license and registration you've been presented are fakes? Can't you, as a welfare office or potential employer, make sure a $25 background check matches the license number you've been given?
Sure you can. Doesn't matter which state's license you're presented. What the government wants is the ability to recognize patterns of behavior in its citizenry in order to deter potentially dangerous situations. This, of course, sounds fine and dandy except they're not just watching guys named "Mohammed" here, and our government has a less-than-noble history being trusted not to spy on Americans without warrants.
Anyway, I'm not trying to say that this push, as it exists right now, is a scary and fearful Big Brother sort of thing. But it's getting there. We're growing more and more comfortable with governmental intrusion into our lives, giving up privacy in the interest of making sure these evil bad guys don't ever hurt us again. It's a short leap from readable magnetic strips to demanding the same biometric information we're asking of the immigrants, and all it's going to take is a school shooter buying a gun with a fake Real ID to get us there. As the burden of proof goes up on the citizens, the ability to track and assemble huge databases of information on these same citizens also rises.
It's not just "them" the government's trying to keep an eye on. Someday it'll be members of the ACLU or PETA, then it'll be a high-tech post-Watergate RNC being watched. It's the absolute height of absurd fealty to assume our government is only after "them" and can be trusted never to look at what they've been collecting on "us." Privacy, to me, isn't a post-9/11 issue - it's a post-Information Age issue. Just because we have the ability to collect, store and analyze vasts banks of information in an incredibly effective and agile way doesn't mean we should.
Powered by ScribeFire.
