Nothing new; come on, you (State) cowards!

It's about time for us to read about how states prefer NOT to implement Real ID. The state governments have been keeping a low profile. Perhaps they're hoping the feds will pay for most of their work, so that they will not hve to pay to implement decent reforms. Perhaps they're afraid of soundng anti-war. STAND UP, you states! Really, you have nothing to lose, and quite a bit to gain.

Is Immigration Reform Inevitable?

It's possible that the real reason for the Real ID act is the desire of people in our federal government to control illegal immigration. Real ID will certainly have a spectacular effect on illegal immigrants. They may be able to purchase illegal Real ID cards, because - as my readers know - the prospects for hacking Real ID and for inside crookedness is excellent. However there are an awful lot of illegal aliens in our society, and it's unlikely that most of them will have access to, and be able to afford, good fake ID. So Joseph G. Cella has written about what may happen to illegal immigrants as Real ID is adopted, assuming that the law works as it is intended to work. (Cella assumes there are 12 to 15 million illegal aliens in the US, and that with baby boomers retiring and aliens forced not to work, the US will experience an acute labor shortage.)

I've already read many essays about how Real ID is not "fair" to immigrants (both legal and illegal). Cella takes a different approach. What he sees is chilling, and he is certain it will lead to legal reform (and massive legalization) in the handling of aliens. He writes, in Immigrant's Weekly:

When the REAL ID ACT is fully implemented, no undocumented alien will be able to get a drivers license in any state. He or she will not be able legally drive, open bank accounts, deposit paychecks, transfer funds, travel by air, or by bus or train for interstate trips. As it is not in our national interest to either deport our workforce, or to deny our workforce the ability to function within our society, a legalization program is the only possible remedy. It is however in our national interest to deny such abilities to our criminal and terrorist undocumented population.

To be sure, in order to legalize under any program every individual will be required to undergo extensive CIA, FBI and international security checks. Those who pass such checks will be permitted to legalize as they become documented. However, those who are felons, have terrorist ties, or are otherwise ineligible to become legal, will probably not participate in the program, or, if they do, will be deported. In the end, we will have a legally documented work force of individuals who have cleared deep security, background and criminal checks, with a far smaller group of criminal and/or terrorist undocumented individuals who will be essentially unable to function in our society due to their inability to secure legal identification, travel, or to open bank accounts and the like.

Finally, any legalization program will require the applicants to pay a significant penalty (probably $2,000.00 each), in addition to the filing fees for applications that they could not otherwise file. Multiply those amounts by the number of applicants, and the amount of revenue raised will be in the tens of billions of dollars.

Personally, I can't imagine how the CIA, FBI and DHS will have time to check out all these people. I also can't imagine where those billions in ransom fines will come from, but I can see a federal goverenment preferring to tax the families of immigrants rather than its own citizens. Cella concludes that "significant and comprehensive immigration reform is inevitable."

North Dakota takes the Big Risk!

According to this release, North Dakota has hired a company called Viisage to redesign their drivers licenses, and ND plans to use the new licenses in 2006. An important quote:

"We selected Viisage as it has the proven technology and solutions that will allow us to produce secure drivers' licenses and IDs for our citizens," commented Mr. Keith C. Magnusson, North Dakota Deputy Director for Driver and Vehicle Services. "I am pleased with their integrated credentialing offering - including the end-to-end solutions capabilities - that will enable us to progressively add further key features to meet standards set by the REAL ID Act."

Trouble is, it's equally likely that most of the work will have to be DONE OVER to meet the Real ID act, which - as we know - is not a well defined target yet. I think Mr. Magnusson would do better to put a hold on all work for now, and plan to use the new licenses in 2008.

A long, objective article

Chad Vander Veen has written a relatively long, objective article about Real ID at GovTech called Papers Please. It's a good summary of what Real ID means to us and where it's going. I've been raising the concern that states can not know how to implement this law until the DHS finishes specifying what they want. Here's a quote that covers this concern very well:

After May 11, 2008, federal agencies, including the Transportation Security Administration, will no longer accept state drivers' licenses unless they have the following data included or embedded: the driver's full legal name, date of birth, gender, permanent address, signature, driver's license number and digital photo of the person's face. In addition, the card must include physical security features -- not yet determined -- and be machine-readable by technology that has not yet been defined.

These undefined elements of the legislation give cause for concern, especially because in less than three years, the entire country will have new drivers' licenses.

"I think there are still a lot of questions up in the air," said Schwartz {Ari Schwartz, associate director of the Center for Democracy and Technology}. "You can look at the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators [AAMVA] standards for some of the issues, like 'machine-readability,' and in the Real ID Act, that term is undefined. It uses the term 'digital photograph,' and that's not defined. It says that [states] need to give 'electronic access' to other states on the back end, and that's not defined. If I were a state, I would hope that would be resolved in the DHS soon."