Homocon

Not even close to being the "attack on immigrant rights" that organizations such as the Leadership Council on Civil Rights and the ACLU are portraying it to be, the "REAL ID Act of 2005" simply establishes minimum standards (including proof of legal presence in this country) that must be met before states issue licenses or ID cards that could be accepted by Federal agencies as proof of identity.

While numerous conspiracy websites, MSM news reports and Leftist press releases scream "racism" and "anti-immigrant bigotry" in response to the passage of the REAL ID Act, the truth is that the REAL ID Act is a step in the right direction -- if you believe that the right direction includes the encouragement of legal immigration and the preventions of identity theft, multiple state IDs and voter fraud, while also ensuring that jury pools are composed of actual U.S. citizens.

Apparently, organizations such as the ACLU could care less.

"The REAL ID Act is a civil rights disaster," shrieks Ahilan Arulanantham, an attorney for the ACLU's Southern California chapter -- of course, refusing to offer any specifics as to just how an act that offers U.S. citizens added protections against identity fraud and government entitlement abuse could possibly violate the civil rights of anyone who believes that laws and government regulations are created to be followed rather than ignored.

Angelica Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Human Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (is it just me, or do liberals adore organization titles that run on longer than Bill Maher's monologues?), trots out the usual stale oppositions to anything that could potentially make immigration enforcement easier and more efficient, declaring that the REAL ID Act "forces asylum seekers to prove . . . that they are indeed being persecuted" by their home government. The worst-case scenario that the ACLU offers as proof of the "anti-asylum" nature of the REAL ID Act?: "The Act . . . allows (not requires, just simply "allows" -- ed.) evil government officials to demand written "corroboration" from those seeking asylum. For instance, a Chinese woman seeking asylum after being forced to have an abortion could be required (again, not actually required, just a sort of vague "could be" required -- ed.) to obtain proof of her abuse from the doctors who performed the procedure."

That's the best they could come up with?

The ACLU conveniently neglects to mention that the written corroboration simply "allowed" for could also be something as innocuous as the testimony of U.S. embassy workers, international relief organization members or other verifiable and credible sources -- if the written corroboration is even asked for, that is.

Even Brian Doherty, a senior editor for Reason Magazine, drinks the conspiracy kool-aid aimed at discrediting the REAL ID Act and derides the act (or even, apparently, any simple asking of ID, such as when boarding for a plane flight or after being stopped by the police) as coercive molestation, officious authoritarianism and a disgrace.

Take a valium like a normal person, Doherty.

While advocates for illegal immigration, such as Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership Council on Civil Rights, claim that "The REAL ID Act is the most blatant attack on immigrant rights since the last major overhaul of immigration law in 1996," they offer no other solution for the troubling growth of illegal immigration (er, excuse me -- "undocumented worker influx"), which is presently estimated at 10 million and growing. There are the shop-worn amnesties and "guest worker " programs laughably proffered as legitimate responses to illegal immigration, but the problem with amnesties and "guest" programs is that: 1. Both refuse to acknowledge that the illegal immigrant is here in the country, well, illegally; 2. The people and companies who employ illegal immigrants are breaking the laws of the land, and shouldn't be excused or rewarded for doing so; and 3. Perhaps the United States is better off with a much stricter identity application policy which seeks, simply, to enforce existing (and hardly onerous) immigration regulations, to verify the claims of those seeking asylum, and to hopefully minimize our country's ongoing problems with identity theft, entitlement program abuse and voter fraud.

In a country where each step taken to require more and better cooperation between separate security organizations is greeted enthusiastically as necessary for the better protection of U.S. citizens, it doesn't make much sense to continue championing the present isolation of one state's DMV records from the other. The only time that DMV's would have any reason to use the REAL ID Act's inter-operable database capability would be when they check as to whether an applicant for a state license or ID already has a license or ID issued from another state -- this is a measure designed to prevent the use of multiple identity documents that criminals and illegal immigrants use to hide from law enforcement and immigration agencies.

Charging that the government will employ the REAL ID Act to "Big Brother" us to death only reveals that the last time the REAL ID critics actually used their brains was when they were forced to read 1984 back in high-school. Oh hell, who am I kidding? They probably just watched the movie, instead.

RANTING LIBERAL BLOG #4,309,279:
This guy is a hoot: "With the Mad King George and Queen Condi at their rudderless and blood-sucking neo-con helm, get ready for a bumpy ride, folks ..."

Click, point and laugh!