The Washington Post has skipped right past the dogs to lie down with the fleas:
THE HOUSE of Representatives is to vote today on the REAL ID Act of 2005. As championed by Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), the bill's principal purpose is to establish federal security controls over driver's licenses issued by states, so that federal officials at airports and elsewhere can have confidence that they know whom they're dealing with. While some civil libertarians worry about establishing a national identification system, the basic idea seems reasonable. But the bill has serious problems; unless they are addressed, the act should not become law.
The first major flaw is that the bill does not stop at requiring that licenses have "physical security features," a digital photograph and other basic data to be valid for federal purposes. It also requires that states see proof that the applicant is legally in the United States. This is unjustified. Different states have adopted different approaches to giving licenses to illegal immigrants, and for good reason. The federal government has failed to control the problem of illegal immigration, and that creates problems that have to be managed at the state level: uninsured drivers, for example. Technically, the bill doesn't prevent a state from continuing to issue such licenses for state driving purposes, as long as they can't be used as federal identification. As a practical matter, however, the likely result would be to set a standard that cuts off policy options for managing a problem the federal government has foisted on the states.
Hey, who moved those goalposts?
The Post is arguing that because the feds haven't done enough against illegals, some states have had to compromise their drivers license policies to make life less inconvenient for illegals, so now it's unfair to those states for the federal government to address the national security concerns resulting from the lax, pro illegal alien "standards" those states have adopted.
Is your head spinning, or is it the Washington Post's editorial writer?
Never mind the September 11th terrorists who exploited the pro-illegal drivers license rackets of several states to fraudulently obtain the drivers licenses they used to board their airplanes. Here is Michelle Malkin's Senate testimony on that fatal terrorist exploit.
At the People for the American Way.
President Ralph G. Neas and Director of Public Policy Marge Baker give this reason for opposing the REAL ID Act:
Despite claims by its sponsors, the REAL IDEA Act fails to improve national security. This piece of legislation would effectively require all states to restrict access to drivers' licenses by requiring them to ask applicants for proof of their lawful presence in the United States. These provisions would undermine national security by pushing people into the shadows and fueling an increase in fraudulent identification documents. Accordingly, these provisions would make us less safe and would not effectively prevent future terrorist attacks.
Indeed, these provisions would not have prevented a single 9/11 hijacker from obtaining a driver's license or boarding a plane. The 9/11 hijackers all entered the United States with legal documents that were obtained fraudulently. Their drivers' licenses were issued based on what appeared to be valid forms of identification and residency. As 9/11 demonstrates, denying undocumented immigrants drivers' licenses would not prevent future terrorists from boarding planes using passports or other valid documents.
Read more about how illegal aliens assisted the September 11 hijackers in obtaining the drivers licenses from Virginia's compromised Department of Motor Vehicles. Virginia has since reformed its system, but without the REAL ID Act there would be no reason why other states couldn't issue drivers licenses to jihadists to facilitate the mass murder of hundreds or thousands of Americans.
If there were truth in political advertising, this group would be People for the Anti-American Way.
Speaking of anti-American organizations, the American Civil Liberties Union website is experiencing technical difficulties as I post this morning, but I found this Google cache of the ACLU's opposition to REAL ID:
DMV employees would be required to identify illegal immigrants and deny them driver's licenses, regardless of any state policies to the opposite, and even though they lack training in federal immigration law. This use of state motor vehicle agencies as agents of the federal immigration service would lead to an increase in unlicensed drivers, undermining public safety and increasing insurance rates for everyone.
No, REAL ID establishes no "requirements" that DMV employees do anything, it establishes federal standards for the acceptance of state drivers' licenses for official federal purposes. These national standards would address real and reasonable security concerns. States that are unreasonable or unconcerned with security are free to continue to make life easy for illegal aliens and terorists, but they would do so at great inconvenience to their citizens and legal residents.
The frightful burden of compliance on residents and states would be that residents would have to demonstrate lawful residence.
Imagine the ACLU's melodramatics if state election officials were in the same predicament.
Finally, the jihadist sympathizers at the Council of American-Islamic Relations have their own reasons for opposing the REAL ID Act:
The bill also states: "An alien who is an officer, official, representative or spokesman of the Palestine Liberation Organization is considered, for purposes of this Act, to be engaged in a terrorist activity." If enacted, this would terminate the current high hopes that the new situation in the Palestinian Territories can lead to a just peace.
Don't you just weep for the sensitivities of the genocidal anti-Semites of the PLO?