c/o AP
HELENA, Mont. — If Montana has its way in a lawsuit filed Thursday, there will be far less federal gun control in the state.
The state's libertarian streak — which has spawned efforts to buck the federal Real ID Act and sparked widespread contempt for the Patriot Act — is now triggering a fight over whether Montana should have sovereignty over made-in-Montana guns and equipment.
Environmental Protections jeopardized by GOP amendments
New efforts by Republican lawmakers to bolster security along the U.S.-Mexico border could undermine the Department of Homeland Security's plans to mitigate environmental damage from the 700-mile fence authorized by Congress to stem the tide of illegal immigration and drugs from Mexico, critics of the fence project say.
One new provision, included in last week's Interior spending bill passed by the Senate, would prohibit federal funding for projects that "impede, prohibit or restrict" activities related to the operational control of the border.
Environmental groups see the language, attached as an amendment by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), as potentially detrimental to efforts by DHS to carry out projects that would reduce the border fence's environmental impacts.
Right wing talk stirs immigration debate discussion of immigration policy
National ID card program's future still dubious as States, citizens object to being given the same identity treatment as immigrants
[BTC - The news and opinions expressed by the following author are not necessarily the views and opinions of this blog or it's editorial news assembly.]
c/o David Frum, NewMajority.com
c/o David Frum, NewMajority.com
The big talk radio topic yesterday was Sen. Grassley’s proposal to require immigrants to show photo ID before buying into new health exchanges. See the headline on Michelle Malkin’s blog for a representative conservative reaction:
Yes, Senate Dems do want illegal alien Obamacare coverage.
Now let me stipulate: I speak here as someone who favored national photo ID before national photo ID was cool. I argued for just such a thing in the book I coauthored with Richard Perle way back in 2003.
If conservatives and Republicans have come around to accept this view, that would be a happy day. But I fear as I listen that the debate only confirms that conservatives these days just don’t think before they talk.
Follow the reasoning here:
1) It’s impossible to write a law that says that immigrants and only immigrants must show ID. How would that work?
“Excuse me ma’am, are you an immigrant? If so, may I see your ID?”
“No, no señor! I’m a member of the DAR!”
Obviously if we are going to enforce a legals-only rule for health insurance, everybody will have to show ID.
2) But what ID? Unfortunately, driver’s licenses do not prove legal residency. Even if the REAL ID Act goes into effect as currently scheduled in 2017 – not an outcome to bet money on - driver’s licenses will remain an uncertain proof of legal residency status.
Conversely, there are many legal residents who lack licenses. They are too old, or they drove drunk, or they are legally blind, or they just never got around to acquiring one. What are they supposed to do?
If we’re going to require people to prove their residency status before enrolling in a health exchange, we’re going to need a reliable system of national identification that enrolls everybody, drivers and non-drivers.
3) Again: I’m all for this! But can you imagine what the right blogosophere and talk radio would say if the Obama administration proposed a national identity card? That would be the final proof of the president’s Hitlerite intentions!
The Grassley debate is a good debate to have. And I do share Malkin’s suspicions that this administration would like to extend subsidized health coverage to illegals – although probably via an amnesty that ended their illegality.
But if this debate is to yield any useful result, conservatives need to be ready to answer the obvious questions: What kind of card? How would it work? What’s our plan? We need to think before we emote.
Yes, Senate Dems do want illegal alien Obamacare coverage.
Now let me stipulate: I speak here as someone who favored national photo ID before national photo ID was cool. I argued for just such a thing in the book I coauthored with Richard Perle way back in 2003.
If conservatives and Republicans have come around to accept this view, that would be a happy day. But I fear as I listen that the debate only confirms that conservatives these days just don’t think before they talk.
Follow the reasoning here:
1) It’s impossible to write a law that says that immigrants and only immigrants must show ID. How would that work?
“Excuse me ma’am, are you an immigrant? If so, may I see your ID?”
“No, no señor! I’m a member of the DAR!”
Obviously if we are going to enforce a legals-only rule for health insurance, everybody will have to show ID.
2) But what ID? Unfortunately, driver’s licenses do not prove legal residency. Even if the REAL ID Act goes into effect as currently scheduled in 2017 – not an outcome to bet money on - driver’s licenses will remain an uncertain proof of legal residency status.
Conversely, there are many legal residents who lack licenses. They are too old, or they drove drunk, or they are legally blind, or they just never got around to acquiring one. What are they supposed to do?
If we’re going to require people to prove their residency status before enrolling in a health exchange, we’re going to need a reliable system of national identification that enrolls everybody, drivers and non-drivers.
3) Again: I’m all for this! But can you imagine what the right blogosophere and talk radio would say if the Obama administration proposed a national identity card? That would be the final proof of the president’s Hitlerite intentions!
The Grassley debate is a good debate to have. And I do share Malkin’s suspicions that this administration would like to extend subsidized health coverage to illegals – although probably via an amnesty that ended their illegality.
But if this debate is to yield any useful result, conservatives need to be ready to answer the obvious questions: What kind of card? How would it work? What’s our plan? We need to think before we emote.
BTC- The makers of KinderGuard's B-Secure product were interviewed for a special segment of Beyond Tomorrow on the Science Channel. The segment, aired yesterday morning, demonstrated how a child GPS tracking system could enable the paranoid and controlling nature of certain parents with the benefits of companion software and monitoring technology. [Technology is awesome; but not in the hands of the wrong people.]
No comments:
Post a Comment