Real ID, HB 1582

[Atlas]

Time is better than defeat.  If they hold a committee meeting, perhaps someone can point out not only the high costs of inter-state document checking compliance, but also the fallacy that it will make us safer.  How will you verify a birth certificate for someone 40 years old?  Call up the office of vital records at that state?  Long distance charges, the time to get someone, having to hire staff to field those calls at both your state and the other state, and the possibility that someone might bribe one person at one office of vital records in one state to say "yes, that birth certificate is valid".

The costs of compliance will be huge.  If instead all our vital records are scanned into computer, accessible to every DMV agent in the country, is there any less potential for fraud?  Can we be assured that no breech will occur in the system?  It is wrong to believe that further identification will increase our security.  Those who wish to do us harm will have no problem in getting said identification, because no matter how much the government tries, it will never be able to get the populace to go along with the measures necessary to actually identify the populace in such a foolproof method that no person not born here could obtain and identification card and do us harm.

In addition, all that ignores the fact, that not all of our threats are born abroad.  The more secure our identification cards become, the less secure we as a nation become.  For the false sense of security that a "secure" identification card carries with it will lead to increased real insecurity born of complacency.

So, there's still hope?

[NC2NH]

Time is better than defeat.  If they hold a committee meeting, perhaps someone can point out not only the high costs of inter-state document checking compliance, but also the fallacy that it will make us safer
...

Great points, Jon. Precious little of this was discussed on the senate floor yesterday. The Democrats were backed into a corner by the Barnes amendment. Their own misguided assertion that New Hampshire's system is almost up to REAL ID standards further weakened their position and drove the debate toward further study. The Republicans insisted that REAL ID is not a national ID card, Judd Gregg is infallible, the Homeland Security director will never allow RFID, and New Hampshire citizens will be rendered helpless if the state opts out. Unfortunately, the debate never quite got around to whether the proposals in REAL ID will actually improve security. The senators were eager to claim they didn't have enough information about REAL ID, and opted to give congress the benefit of the doubt and simply "study" the issue later. I sincerely hope that the issues you brought up will be addressed and that the many distortions and exaggerations made by the Republicans can be brought to light in the committee.

[Dreepa]

Time is better than defeat.  If they hold a committee meeting, perhaps someone can point out not only the high costs of inter-state document checking compliance, but also the fallacy that it will make us safer.  How will you verify a birth certificate for someone 40 years old?  Call up the office of vital records at that state?  Long distance charges, the time to get someone, having to hire staff to field those calls at both your state and the other state, and the possibility that someone might bribe one person at one office of vital records in one state to say "yes, that birth certificate is valid".

You already have to show your birth certificate when you get your NH DL.  So nothing will change there.
http://nh.gov/safety/dmv/driverlic/uscittran.html

[pounaw]

I think that we should continue to 'sell' the reasons why RealID is a bad idea.  This excerpt I feel expresses it well.

from August 9, 2004, by US Rep. Ron Paul
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst080904.htm

Every generation must resist the temptation to believe that it lives in the most dangerous time in American history.  The threat of Islamic terrorism is real, but it is not the greatest danger ever faced by our nation.  This is not to dismiss the threat of terrorism, but rather to put it in perspective.  Those who seek to whip the nation into a frenzy of fear do a disservice to a country that expelled the British, fought two world wars, and stared down the Soviet empire.

Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset.  When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage.  America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government.  Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.

[d_goddard]

The vote-switchers were Martel, Roberge, Kenney and Barnes.  Gatsas was not on the committee.
In my view, they would have been better off to ITL it or propose the gutting in committee.

Bah, my bad, you're 100% correct. Gatsas just got under my skin; I typed his name cause it was stuck in my head. I failed to type Roberge because she seemed like such a trustable Thatercherite. Looks can be deceiving, eh?!

And yes, they all weaseled, backed off from making a decision and taking a stand.
Well, all except for Gallus and Bragdon, that is

Anyway... the fight ain't over, the fat lady cleared her throat and then decided it wasn't time to sing yet.

[JonM]

Time is better than defeat.  If they hold a committee meeting, perhaps someone can point out not only the high costs of inter-state document checking compliance, but also the fallacy that it will make us safer.  How will you verify a birth certificate for someone 40 years old?  Call up the office of vital records at that state?  Long distance charges, the time to get someone, having to hire staff to field those calls at both your state and the other state, and the possibility that someone might bribe one person at one office of vital records in one state to say "yes, that birth certificate is valid".

You already have to show your birth certificate when you get your NH DL.  So nothing will change there.
http://nh.gov/safety/dmv/driverlic/uscittran.html

But they don't verify it, so if you forge one . . . how will they know under the current system?

[Dreepa]

Time is better than defeat.  If they hold a committee meeting, perhaps someone can point out not only the high costs of inter-state document checking compliance, but also the fallacy that it will make us safer.  How will you verify a birth certificate for someone 40 years old?  Call up the office of vital records at that state?  Long distance charges, the time to get someone, having to hire staff to field those calls at both your state and the other state, and the possibility that someone might bribe one person at one office of vital records in one state to say "yes, that birth certificate is valid".

You already have to show your birth certificate when you get your NH DL.  So nothing will change there.
http://nh.gov/safety/dmv/driverlic/uscittran.html

But they don't verify it, so if you forge one . . . how will they know under the current system?

I don't think that REAL ID requires that either.  REAL ID does require a SSN check though.

[CNHT]

But they don't verify it, so if you forge one . . . how will they know under the current system?

Good point! Even the person who was arguing FOR this Real ID Act said you can easily forge a drivers license by getting one from the web.
So this means in order to be effective, there will be biometric/chip technology embedded in the newly compliant ones, which is what we don't want.

[CNHT]

If you want to send your emails of dismay to the 14 here they are en masse:


carljean@worldpath.net, joseph.kenney@leg.state.nh.us, robert.boyce@leg.state.nh.us, robert.flanders@leg.state.nh.us, richard.green@leg.state.nh.us, rpojr@aol.com, patrick.murphy@leg.state.nh.us, charles.morse@leg.state.nh.us, thomas.eaton@leg.state.nh.us, senclegg@aol.com, ted.gatsas@leg.state.nh.us, jack.barnes@leg.state.nh.us, andre.martel@leg.state.nh.us, robert.letourneau@leg.state.nh.us

[Pat McCotter]

Word on the street is that yesterday, Rep. Kurk successfully added the full language of the original HB 1582 to another bill, SB 399.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=1d871af7-4eae-4a0c-96a5-d84c240ebfe4

HEY EVERYBODY!!!!!!!!!!

Did you read what Ruger had to say?
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2006/SB0399.html
Clause 5
5 Prohibition Against Participation in National Identification System. The general court finds that the public policy established by Congress in the Real ID Act of 2005, Public Law 109-13, is contrary and repugnant to Articles 1 through 10 of the New Hampshire constitution as well as Amendments 4 though 10 of the Constitution for the United States of America. Therefore, the state of New Hampshire shall not participate in a national identification card system; nor shall the department of safety amend the procedures for applying for a driver?s license under RSA 263 or an identification card under RSA 260:21.

[Thespis]

Just keep adding the wording into bills until it passes. 

Awesome.

[aries]

Time is better than defeat.

I put that in my list of quotes. I really like that 

[d_goddard]

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2006/SB0399.html

Groovy.
This bill has passed the Senate & House and therefore is also headed for a Committee of Conference.


I <3 Neal Kurk

[aries]

You already have to show your birth certificate when you get your NH DL.  So nothing will change there.
http://nh.gov/safety/dmv/driverlic/uscittran.html

What about "social security card and account number, or proof that you are ineligible for one"

Is a "conscientious objection" proof of ineligibility?

[aries]

Word on the street is that yesterday, Rep. Kurk successfully added the full language of the original HB 1582 to another bill, SB 399.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=1d871af7-4eae-4a0c-96a5-d84c240ebfe4

HEY EVERYBODY!!!!!!!!!!

Did you read what Ruger had to say?
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2006/SB0399.html
Clause 5
5 Prohibition Against Participation in National Identification System. The general court finds that the public policy established by Congress in the Real ID Act of 2005, Public Law 109-13, is contrary and repugnant to Articles 1 through 10 of the New Hampshire constitution as well as Amendments 4 though 10 of the Constitution for the United States of America. Therefore, the state of New Hampshire shall not participate in a national identification card system; nor shall the department of safety amend the procedures for applying for a driver's license under RSA 263 or an identification card under RSA 260:21.

holy crap!

passed both house and senate!

AN ACT relative to the powers of state government in the event of an incident or outbreak of communicable disease and prohibiting New Hampshire from participating in a national identification card system.