The Democrats' Immigration Bill Is a Sham

What is Harry Reid trying to pull? The details of the Democrats' immigration bill are coming out, and it's a head-fake. Congress needs to "just say no" to this turkey of a bill.

The bill is a border enhancement bill and not what we need. It's "path to legalization" is 8 years. It's more money for cops and the war on drugs.

It creates biometric national id cards -- today for immigrants. As if they aren't planning them for all of us soon after:

The legislation would require the Social Security Administration to oversee a new system of biometric cards that could be used to prevent hiring of illegal immigrants. It would replace existing verification systems six years after they were enacted.

Then there's this: [more...]

The Democratic proposal includes increased money for border patrol and drug war agents, equipment, helicopters and unmanned drones.

And, it will take 8 years for an undocumented person to get citizenship. And fund the war on drugs and more ICE agents.

The plan would provide a way for the estimated 11 million people illegally in the U.S. to become citizens. They could first get “lawful immigrant status,” allowing them to work in the U.S. and come and go from this country. After current visa backlogs are cleared, which would take about eight years, they could petition to become permanent U.S. citizens.

This bill needs to be tossed fast. Hopefully the Republicans, with their typical ignorance, will fail to see it as the gift to them that it is and block it from coming to a vote.

More provisions: (full summary here.)

1. More Border Patrol officers
2. More Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, worksite inspectors, document fraud investigators and drug-war agents
3. The "installation of high-tech ground sensors throughout the southern border and for equipping all border patrol officers with the technological capability to respond to activation of the ground sensors in the area they are patrolling."
4. More prosecution of drug smuggling, human trafficking and unauthorized border crossing
5. "[I]ncreases in the number of sport utility vehicles, helicopters, power boats, river boats, portable computers to track illegal immigrants and drug smugglers while inside of a border patrol vehicle, night vision equipment, Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), Remote Video Surveillance Systems (RVSS), scope trucks, and Mobile Surveillance Systems (MSS)."
6. All prisoners will be checked for immigration status and deported if found to lack documentation.
7. DHS will "identify, investigate, and initiate removal proceedings" against folks who came here legally but didn't leave.
8. The bill would create "a broad-based registration program that requires all illegal immigrants living in the U.S. to come forward to register, be screened, and, if eligible, complete other requirements to earn legal status, including paying taxes."

Pretty soon there will more drug agents in this country than there are drug offenders. It seems like every bill Congress has passed in the past year has more money for the war on drugs, here and abroad.

And here's a curious inclusion in the immigration bill.

It will also create a Commission on Wartime Treatment of European Americas to review the United States Government's wartime treatment of European Americans and European Latin Americans during World War II, and a Commission on Wartime Treatment of Jewish Refugees to review the United States Government's refusal to allow Jewish and other refugees fleeing persecution or genocide in Europe entry to the United States during World War II.

How much is it going to cost for a commission to study something that happened 60 years ago?

And do we need faith-based provisions that give visa preferences to immigrants who are ministers?

The R-1 religious worker visa program will be made permanent, and religious organizations will be able to bring minister more easily.

And why are we favoring Ireland?

This proposal creates an E-3 visa for nationals of the Republic of Ireland similar to the visa already provided for nationals of Australia. It allows for foreign nurses and physical therapists to enter the United States to alleviate shortages in these areas. The EB-5 program will be made permanent and adapted to increase foreign investment into the United States.

8 years is no path to citizenship. The biometric cards will be used for all Americans after they gain traction with use for immigrants. We need to stop over-funding law enforcement and concentrate of funding domestic programs that will help everyone.

This bill is a sham. I'm not supporting it.

< Thursday Night Open Thread | More On The Left Flank: Defining The Middle >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    What you said Jeralyn... (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 12:29:41 AM EST
    The Democrats' immigration bill...creates biometric national id cards -- today for immigrants. As if they aren't planning them for all of us soon after. (Emphasis added.)

    Truer words were never spoken.

    So, (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by Emma on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 12:52:17 AM EST
    given the biometric ID cards specifically for immigrants, on what basis are Democrats so allegedly outraged about the AZ statute?

    Seriously, when do Dem supporters figure out they've been played?

    but but but (none / 0) (#4)
    by cawaltz on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 01:52:25 AM EST
    The alternative is worse.

    The new Democratic party appears willing to lower the bar so low in hopes that even the most inept and incapable might be able to stumble over it (and let's face it that's a fairly apt description of todays Democrats)because the alternative is Republican. Frankly, it's sad and kind of an insult to our forefathers to settle for so little because starting a party from scratch would require monumental effort.


    "starting a party from scratch" (none / 0) (#5)
    by Andreas on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 02:25:57 AM EST
    The Democrats and the Republicans of cause are trying to defend their two-party regime.

    But it is not necessary to start a party from scratch. The Socialist Equality Party and the Fourth International exist.


    And the Green Party, right? (none / 0) (#74)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 05:23:03 PM EST
    Yes (none / 0) (#81)
    by Andreas on Sat May 01, 2010 at 01:41:06 AM EST
    The SEP has collaborated with other "third" parties such as the Greens or the Libertarian Party against such anti-democratic (and sometimes criminal) attacks for which especially the Democrats are known.

    Create fear then... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by mexboy on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 01:25:58 AM EST
    citizens will beg for the biometric card. I'm beginning to think the Democrats and Republicans are working together on this. Good cop, bad cop. We lose!

    they've been working together since (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 02:50:49 AM EST
    Obmama the compromiser, the "there are no blue states, no red states, just the united states" got in office. Look what happened to health care. And the crack powder bill going to 20:1 instead of 15:1.

    this may be the worst, the title tells you all you need to know...REPAIR bill acronyms are Real Enforcement with Practical Answers for Immigration Reform).


    they've been working together since (none / 0) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 02:52:45 AM EST
    Obmama the compromiser, got into office with his  "there are no blue states, no red states, just the united states". Look what happened to health care. And the crack powder bill going to 20:1 instead of 1:1.

    this may be the worst, the title tells you all you need to know...REPAIR bill acronyms are Real Enforcement with Practical Answers for Immigration Reform).


    Immigration Bill (none / 0) (#20)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 09:28:46 AM EST
    This nonsense has not started with Obama, despite the promises he has made,  the compromiser schtick he has assumed, and the crack cocaine disparity.

    This is nothing new.

    The fight for a decent immigration bill has been going on for quite a while:

    Several pieces of legislation signed into law in 1996 marked a turn towards harsher policies for both legal and illegal immigrants. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) and Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) vastly increased the categories of criminal activity for which immigrants, including green card holders, can be deported and imposed mandatory detention for certain types of deportation cases. As a result, well over 1,000,000 individuals have been deported since 1996.[3]


    And the bills have gotten worse ever since...


    What's wrong with deporting criminals? (none / 0) (#67)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 11:35:19 AM EST
    "Obmama" (none / 0) (#57)
    by hookfan on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 10:41:14 AM EST
    may be applicable, but I doubt you stoop to name calling. gotta love typos. . .

    More like "Obummer"... (none / 0) (#76)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 05:26:51 PM EST
    I didn't coin that - saw it on some progblog or other.

    This just saddens me. (none / 0) (#75)
    by mexboy on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 05:23:51 PM EST
    In the meantime I'll be marching in Los Angeles tomorrow and documenting it.

    I'll make a short of it and post it on youtube for everyone to see.


    We are fast becoming a de facto police state... (none / 0) (#79)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 05:52:51 PM EST
    via the draconian, fear-mongering efforts of Homeland Security and the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

    How convenient that the INS (which used to be a part of the Justice Department) got absorbed by the newly founded Department of Homeland Security in 2003.  


    These issues are not partisan (none / 0) (#13)
    by Rojas on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 08:37:02 AM EST
    It's right out of the DLC play book.

    Thanks for breaking it down J... (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 07:58:33 AM EST
    sounds like it should be called the "Duncan Hunter's True Soul of America Bill".

    More corporate welfare for the tyranny sector in the name of "immigration reform".  Orwell would marvel at how doublespeak has taken off.

    3 Strikes Obama's out! (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 08:56:48 AM EST
    Strike one:

    Total incompetence in negotiating the HCR bill.

    Strike two:

    Off shore drilling. (Now highlighted by the ecological disaster we're dealing with in the Gulf).

    Strike three:

    A national bio chip card! They'll fit in nicely with the wire tapping and the surveillance cameras. The KGB is well and alive and has moved to the USA

    I am so upset about this oil spill (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 09:27:46 AM EST
    This is going to damage everything around here, the food we all eat, the place we spend our weekends.  Many of our retired friends have beach property that they hang out at every holiday.  Most of them celebrate Christmas at the beach now too.  Obama has been a disappointment to me at almost every turn.  I wasn't upset about ramping up Afghanistan, but everyone else was....that one has to be on a list some place too for most liberals.  I'm going to spend the day with my dogs and Joshua when he gets home, I just feel fricken tired of being drug through the Obama mud.  We gave him an Afghanistan deployment, but I don't feel that he cares about in essence "people".  He cares about power, and he packages it very nicely....nice smile, statesman voice that inspires trust.

    I'm past being upset! (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 10:00:49 AM EST
    I'm outraged that Obama and the Democratic Party have decided to remake the party in the image of Reagan rather than Roosevelt.

    I never thought I would see the day that Democrats would take a pro life stance, an elitist economic stance and now the icing on the cake, national ID cards.


    Heard on NPR this morning... (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 10:05:19 AM EST
    Obama is putting offshore drilling on hold for now because of the spill. Credit where credit is due I guess.

    We'll see if they're smart enough to use this disaster for leverage against pressure from Big Oil, etc.


    And Again (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 11:19:24 AM EST
    Isn't it amazing how much power the lone hero, powerless, at the mercy of greater powers than he Obama, has when he wants to claim his power?

    But MT, this well is not Obama's doing (none / 0) (#55)
    by DFLer on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 10:39:42 AM EST
    I know (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 11:16:03 AM EST
    and he's still guilty of changing his campaign stance on offshore drilling and fibbing to the public about the dangers in order to justify his in bed with big business sell out.

    please stick to immigration here (none / 0) (#65)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 11:18:44 AM EST
    and save this for an open thread, thanks.

    Biometric ID Card (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Manuel on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 09:25:59 AM EST
    With identity theft, fraud, and security being huge issues for the country, the use of biometric information for identity in travel and economic transactions will happen sooner or later.  Many countries have long had national ID cards.  Passports are sure to be enhanced with biometric data.  The best we can hope for is to try to preserve some semblance of privacy in the system.

    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 09:41:31 AM EST
    Did you ever consider that a biometric identity card can make identity theft even easier?

    Progress is a fiction, although the people selling the sh*t beg to differ.

    The new biometric passport allows anyone who spends $250. to read and copy all the biometric information, from 10' away.

    It used to be that in order for someone to copy your passport they would need to have it in their hands for a certain amount of time.

    Longer time, when it had to be hand copied, to shorter, with xerox, to no time now.. that is progress for you...


    I am just noting the trend (none / 0) (#71)
    by Manuel on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 03:15:57 PM EST
    Technology will keep "improving".


    Switzerland 2010

    India 2010


    You are probably right about this (none / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 09:36:05 AM EST
    But no horse should easily break to the lead because then you won't notice when the next stop is the dog food factory.  And those with the lead in hand always notice who is easy pickins when they are short on resources.

    I agree but (none / 0) (#70)
    by Manuel on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 03:01:15 PM EST
    the problem with being against ubiquitous biometric data is being on the wrong side of what is convenient and the technology trend.  Time and again people choose convenience over privacy.  Look at all the amount of private data people willingly turn over to social networks.  The trick is to give people control over their data and who can access it when.  That principle needs to put into law.  It is easier to rally people around it.

    To top it all off, this (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by kenosharick on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 09:58:58 AM EST
    will be a HUGE (at least in the near term) political loser for the Dems. They will be portrayed as "supporting amnesty" and November will be even worse than it looks now. I've seen some liberals (R. Maddow comes to mind) almost gleeful over the repub split over the racist Az. law. Unfortunately, among those most likely to vote the law is popular. 2010 is looking worse and worse for Dems.

    Yes, Dems are flailing, but (none / 0) (#73)
    by ZtoA on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 04:46:16 PM EST
    I would support "amnesty" - except that I don't agree with that term. They could frame it as supporting humanity, Christian values, fairness and the grand tradition of our great nation of immigrants. Of course the dems won't do this. They'll try to come off as tough - just as tough as repubs.

    I can't quite understand just why this bill is popular (and for the moment I'm going to concede that racism did not originate the bill - tho it will certainly be the result of it). OK, some federal US immigration law is broken, but consider the motives and the laws. My ancestors did the very same thing. And the recourse seems extremely harsh. Is there some sort of limit on being an illegal? If some girl or boy grows up in their home like everyone else are they to be punished for a law their parents (grand parents, great grandparents??) broke?

    Even for those of us who are horribly hit by this recession we still have many advantages and privileges.


    Come on... (none / 0) (#77)
    by BTAL on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 05:27:41 PM EST
    OK, some federal US immigration law is broken, but consider the motives and the laws.

    So just where do you draw the line?  Guess anything goes as long as the "motives" were correct.

    Pure BS.


    Where do I draw the line? (none / 0) (#80)
    by ZtoA on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 07:44:49 PM EST
    Not that it matters, but I'm for opening up immigration. I don't think people who want a better life for their children are criminals (unless we are all criminals). I don't think people who are hungry or in a disaster who steal food are looters/criminals. And I don't think this should be the debate. You did not comment about punishing the innocent children, or for how many generations you think breaking a law should affect.

    Cost (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 10:08:12 AM EST
    Amazing that they have no problems with the cost of this! I thought we were broke? All I've heard for the last year is we can't do anything because we don't have the money.

    What campaign donor is going to get this contract?

    Bingo (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 10:17:13 AM EST
    We're only broke (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by hookfan on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 10:21:15 AM EST
    when it comes to considering entitlements. Never applies when it comes to security or military or banking desires.See? It's easy-- just ask who's the priority for this administration and it all falls into place. Ronald Reagan, the bestest Democrat ever lived!

    Halliburton or KBR. (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 10:24:02 AM EST
    they did such good work in Iraq, and since the Dems are the Party of Reagan now...

    Big Business and Big Brother!

    Why be afraid of fascism or corporatism, when we can fear a Democratic proposal?

    Kdog, i'll probably be teaching English down south soon... after about 3 more years when I can retire.  You and your lovely are welcome for an extended visit. what a mess.


    Hook, are we BFF's (none / 0) (#50)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 10:25:10 AM EST
    with our Reagan references?

    Must be the French Resistance (none / 0) (#54)
    by hookfan on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 10:37:55 AM EST
    has an effect on one's perception.

    A kind offer Jeff.... (none / 0) (#56)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 10:40:06 AM EST
    I hear ya...never thought I'd let the bastards drive me outta here but the stench is becoming too much to bear.  The Duncan Hunter's of the nation can have the place and complete it's ruination without me.

    I think I'll play the Pick-6 at Churchill tomorrow and see if I can speed this along.


    Looks like a winner! (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 10:41:29 AM EST
    This bill ought to pass fine and fast -- a bill that could have been written by GOP border cop Jim Senselessbrenner.

    With the GOP votes for it, the Blue Dog pseudo-Dem votes for it . . . get ready to be biochipped, too.

    This doesn't sound very realistic plan. (none / 0) (#6)
    by EL seattle on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 02:39:48 AM EST
    I think that there are a lot of vague details and optimistic assumptions in this proposal that could hold a lot of pesky (and expensive) devils.

    For instance, from page 25 of the proposal:

    Such persons will not be eligible for regitration if they: ... (5) have entered illegally after the date of introduction of the bill.

    In an ideal world, everybody who might be willing to sneak into the USA to find a better life would just quit trying as soon as the bill is introduced.  But I'd bet there might be a lot of folks who will continue to enter this country illegally for the several years until all the biometric cards have been issued, especially if they think that they can use forged 'supporting documentation' to qualify for a social security card.

    I gather that it's a carefully crafted compromise (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 05:52:04 AM EST
    It doesn't meet my preferences either: I would be happier with a return to something more closely resembling the  the pre-1924 rules.

    What is wrong with an 8 year process (none / 0) (#10)
    by BTAL on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 07:58:30 AM EST
    for those that broke the law?  Why allow the ones who didn't follow the rules to be treated the same as those that did?

    As to the bio-card, it is not just for immigrants, it will be for everyone - a high tech SS card replacement.

    And the left calls the Rs fascists.

    This is my belief (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 09:30:42 AM EST
    And I'm probably wickedly alone here and a big dreamer.  But in my opinion NAFTA was supposed to encourage an environment that could perhaps someday equal the EU.  But the wealthy only want to exploit the "differences" between the two countries and in order to do that we must remain US and THEM and there must be economic disparity.

    THIS (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 09:36:51 AM EST

    But the wealthy only want to exploit the "differences" between the two countries

    is exactly right.  republicans want the status quo.  maybe the democrats to as well.  it provides cheap labor that would quickly disappear with real reform.

    You are absolutely right, MT (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Spamlet on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 10:50:21 AM EST
    NAFTA, thanks to our "elected" (read: bought and paid for) representatives, has created a whole "teeming mass" of "homeless, tempest-tossed" economic refugees. For humanitarian reasons alone, we should take them in and make them legal citizens. There are good socioeconomic reasons to do so as well.

    But, no. We treat them like the radioactive waste from our nuclear plants. Maybe Harry Reid can get some traction with his consituents by proposing to have the "illegals" trucked to Nevada and buried.


    Amen gang... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 11:05:13 AM EST
    NAFTA made it kosher to move goods and cash over the borders...but they forgot to free the damn capital that bleeds in that little trade agreement.

    Cheap labor, deregulation (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 11:48:49 AM EST
    and easily corruptible governments.

    Investment capital seeks them out the way water flows into the low lying areas first. It's the deep wisdom of unimpeded markets, unfolding like the gradual revealing of the workings of divine providence.

    And then, of course, "the rising tide" trickles down to everyone everywhere. Eventually. Within a century or so, at most.

    It's all so beautiful in it's simplicity, you'd almost think it was one of those self-serving myths people make up to convince others that Utopia (Walmartia?) or the millennium was just around the corner.


    Legal Immigration (none / 0) (#37)
    by gaf on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 10:01:43 AM EST
    What is wrong with an 8 year process for those that broke the law?

    Agreed with you in the earlier thread. Agreeing with you again here.

    One thing wrong... (none / 0) (#69)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 11:54:13 AM EST
    is that it has become impossible to live without breaking the law..."lawbreaker", "criminal", "illegal", what have you...these words have lost all meaning, you might as well just say "human being".

    That is a pure strawman (none / 0) (#72)
    by BTAL on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 04:16:56 PM EST
    This is not a case of jaywalking, stretching the speed limit or rolling through a stop sign.

    Actually.. (none / 0) (#82)
    by kdog on Sat May 01, 2010 at 08:42:36 AM EST
    I see a striking resemblance between the "crimes" of jaywalking and being undocumented...both "crimes" are as simple as putting one foot in front of the other.

    Schumer's Bill (none / 0) (#12)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 08:31:25 AM EST
    The Senator from NY is quickly losing my vote.

    Excellent Primary Challenger (none / 0) (#83)
    by Ben Masel on Sat May 01, 2010 at 09:27:54 AM EST
    Thanks Ben (none / 0) (#85)
    by squeaky on Sat May 01, 2010 at 10:05:22 AM EST
    I am sending a check..  Actually Schumer had lost me some time ago..

    and this monstrosity... what a decade for the strengthening of civil liberties.

    I hope this bill is defeated. Might be time for me to cozy up to Shelby and Sessions for the moment. What's the old saying about 'strange bedfellows"?

    what? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 09:28:20 AM EST
    you mean you are not for repealing the 14th amendment?


    What is the argument against a bio-chip SS card? (none / 0) (#19)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 09:28:31 AM EST
    I'm not usually dense about this stuff, but I don't have a problem with that, if it is not a tracking device too. If someone can explain it to me gently, please do!

    I am not convinced that we are (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 09:33:18 AM EST
    all so "biometrically" individual that I won't get renditioned because my "biometrics" match someone who blew a train in Spain.

    Yeah, I get the point that (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 10:07:15 AM EST
    the more data we have out there the more likely it is to be misused.



    Here's my argument against... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 10:03:07 AM EST
    A) We don't need it and it sounds expensive.


    B) Look at who wants it.

    "B" is really all I need to know:)


    In a way I think I am even more (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 10:11:20 AM EST
    jaded than all of you.

    I assume they are going to do what they want with me regardless of any info on a card.


    If you're on one of the hit lists... (none / 0) (#49)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 10:25:06 AM EST
    they will get you no matter what, no doubt.

    But we can at least try to minimize the tools they use to do it...biometrics spooks me.


    Your phone (none / 0) (#25)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 09:40:03 AM EST
    Is a tracking device.  Everytime you log on to the Internet, you can be tracked.  Everytime you use a credit or debit card, you can be tracked.  Speed and security cameras can track you.  The only way you can truly be off the grid is to move out of an urban area and live alone on top of a mountain in a cabin.

    But (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by Emma on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 09:45:25 AM EST
    then they'll get you on satellite.

    You're better off in dense jungle cover, where they can't pick up your heat signature and the jungle canopy foils their prying eyes.

    Or become homeless on the city streets.  Nobody ever sees them.


    I'm a Dem woman (5.00 / 7) (#31)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 09:57:44 AM EST
    I thought I was invisible enough!

    You are. (5.00 / 9) (#34)
    by Emma on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 10:00:44 AM EST
    They're just tracking your uterus.

    is (none / 0) (#27)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 09:43:25 AM EST
    kdog around?

    no?  must be off the grid.


    I bet (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 09:52:59 AM EST
    If someone wanted to find him, they could.

    Right here brother... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 10:00:58 AM EST
    I was pricing out lead online to line my secret bunker in an undisclosed location...I think I'm gonna need a better place to hide from the 21st century.

    Dude (none / 0) (#53)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 10:37:41 AM EST
    You have an email address in your profile.  Even if you used fake info, someone with technology and the know how could probably pinpoint you within an hour or so if they wanted to find you.  Lead won't protect you, but only poison you.  :-)

    I know, I know... (none / 0) (#60)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 10:46:04 AM EST
    just snarking around...privacy is dead as a door nail, everybody knows that, with the state flailing at the corpse with a big bullwhip.

    True - and an SS card I can at least leave (none / 0) (#30)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 09:55:13 AM EST
    at home. I haven't had mine for 40 years anyway.

    you know what (none / 0) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 10:10:21 AM EST
    neither had I until I moved to this state.  I have lived in many states, changed my drivers license and left the country more than once without one.

    then I moved here.  it is required for EVERYTHING.
    starting with changing your drivers license.


    Are you in Illinois, as I recall? (none / 0) (#44)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 10:15:28 AM EST
    That is where I lost mine when I was in high school. Not quite 40 yrs....35...

    Anyway, even FL has not gotten that bad yet, though we do now need a birth certificate or passport and 2 proof of address docs to even get a duplicate driver's license for one you already have. Mine has a big crack in it, so I investigated. I will be hanging on to it till it expires now that I know what  pain it is to replace.


    Illinois here (none / 0) (#51)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 10:30:49 AM EST
    Not only did I have to have my S.S. card to renew my license, they sent me home to get my birth certificate. I've had a license here for over 40 years. I've lived at the same location for over 20 of them and I get my good driver certificate from them everytime I renew.

    All of the sudden I'm invisable?


    it really is (none / 0) (#52)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 10:33:49 AM EST
    quite extreme it seems to me.

    imagine what I had to go through with a birth certificate that has my signature.


    That made me laugh (none / 0) (#62)
    by Spamlet on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 10:57:34 AM EST
    Your comment called up the incongruous image of a baby signing his own birth certificate. It reminded me of a doll I saw once in a toy store. It was an infant, supposed to be about 3-4 months old, and it came with all the usual supplies: a bottle, diapers, a blanket, a pacifier, some baby soap and baby shampoo, and--shower gel.

    I hear ya (none / 0) (#59)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 10:44:37 AM EST
    When I went to switch my license from Michigan to Virginia, it took a couple of trips because my valid MI license wasn't enough.  I needed that plus SS card, birth certificate, another form of ID ( like a credit card), and a proof of address (like an electric bill).  You should see the expression on my face in my driver's license picture - let's just say it isn't my happy face!

    which I might add (none / 0) (#45)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 10:16:14 AM EST
    was a real pain in the a$$ since not being born in a hospital and not having a regulation birth certificate, well,  use your imagination.

    I finally just got a card after almost a year.


    Location tracking: House hearing Wed. (none / 0) (#84)
    by Ben Masel on Sat May 01, 2010 at 10:03:07 AM EST
    The Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution will be looking at updates to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act to cover location data and images (the PA School case)



    It is inevitably a tracking device (none / 0) (#33)
    by cenobite on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 09:59:32 AM EST
    Imagine that every time that today you show your driver's license/state id card for a financial transaction that a record is automatically made into a government database. It's not real time but it will track where you were and what you did.

    I called DNC today to complain about the current (none / 0) (#78)
    by jawbone on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 05:40:54 PM EST
    Democrats.  I was transferred immediately to the chairman's office, got a weary sounding woman who barely said a word.

    After I'd said I no longer recognized the way Dems were governing, specifically mentioning the biometric SS card and it most likely leading to a national ID requirement, there was silence. I said that I don't see anything of the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party in what's going in with our Dems in DC, that I was on the verge of leaving the party, changing my registration to independent, that I would not vote Repub but it was getting harder and harder to vote Democratic.  

    I said I'd worked hard to get more Dems in Congress, to get a Dem prez, and now I might as well have saved my calls, precinct work, and the meager donations I could afford as we seem to have gotten Repub Lite or sometimes pretty crazy Repub type actions.

    I then asked if she wanted my name, location. She was not very interested, but I insisted.

    It was a very strange interaction.  Either the word is out to say nothing to DFHs or...they're worn out?

    DNC number: 202 863-8000