Your papers, please?

The Set-Up:

Yesterday, by a vote of 100-0, the Senate approved an $82 billion emergency defense spending legislation (the fifth such request made by the fiscally prudent Bush administration since 9/11/01, but we can get into that another time). The House already approved it, and Bush can't wait to sign it.

The Catch:

Buried in the defense bill---where it could not be discussed or debated, and where no sane representative would dare vote against it--is a section authorizing the so-called "REAL ID:"

Starting three years from now, if you live or work in the United States, you'll need a federally approved ID card to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments, or take advantage of nearly any government service. Practically speaking, your driver's license likely will have to be reissued to meet federal standards.

The Real ID Act hands the Department of Homeland Security the power to set these standards and determine whether state drivers' licenses and other ID cards pass muster. Only ID cards approved by Homeland Security can be accepted "for any official purpose" by the feds.

State DMVs will be responsible for collecting and organizing the data for Homeland Security, in a database system linking all states.

The rationale for the legislation is to curb illegal immigration and terrorist activities. Despite the measure's wild popularity in DC, it's not playing so well in the rest of the country--including among citizens who aren't illegal aliens or terrorists, but have a decent concern about government monitoring and violation of privacy, to say nothing of increased possibility of identity theft. Hence the congressional leaders' decision to slide it through in a form that is immune to debate or public pressure.

The Opposition:

The REAL ID act was steamrolled through while most news media slept. Opposition now will have to focus on stopping the implementation. It's likely to come from one or both of these directions:

Procedural grounds - The National Governors Association and the National Conference of State Legislatures have registered their disapproval of the REAL ID act, although mainly on logistical and procedural, rather than constitutional, grounds:

NGA and NCSL believe the negotiated rulemaking framework established through the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 already provides the opportunity to develop effective national standards. The groups urge Congress to oppose any legislative effort that would curtail this ongoing rulemaking process.

"Governors share the concern for increasing the security and integrity of the driver's license and state identification processes, but they believe last year's compromise is the best course of action to meet those goals," said NGA Executive Director Raymond Scheppach. "The REAL ID Act would interfere with the work of the negotiated rulemaking committee and would impose unrealistic technological standards and burdensome verification procedures on states."

The ongoing negotiated rulemaking process encourages input from governors, state legislators and additional state officials, as well as other stakeholders and interested parties. Additionally, it protects existing state eligibility criteria and retains the necessary flexibility needed to incorporate best practices from around the nation.

This approach doesn't warm my heart--it feels like finally convicting Al Capone of tax evasion instead of murder and racketeering--but at least it's headed in the right direction.

Constitutional grounds - As the ACLU points out, the REAL ID act is bad news for international law, existing state and federal laws, and a "show us your papers" society:

The act goes against international law and allows government officials to demand written "corroboration" from those seeking asylum. For instance, a Chinese woman seeking asylum after being forced to have an abortion could be required to obtain proof of her abuse from the doctors who performed the procedure.

Additionally, the Real ID Act would waive all state and federal laws to give the Department of Homeland Security unconditional authority to build barriers along the entire border -- placing private property in the hands of federal agents for a "land grab" for national security purposes.

The act also takes us one step closer to a national ID, and a "show us your papers" society by forcing states to link their databases -- containing every licensed driver’s personal information -- with other states and with Canada and Mexico. The act includes no guidelines as to who will have access to that information.

The Oregon Angle:

According to today's Oregonian (no link):

Oregon is one of nine states that does not require applicants to prove citizenship or legal residency to get a driver's license.

Lorna Youngs, administrator of Driver and Motor Vehicle Services, estimates it will cost at least $750,000 to comply with such a new federal law, including changes to link with federal databases to verify Social Security numbers and residency status and adding staff.

The Oregon House Transportation Committee is scheduled to vote today on House Bill 2608, which would require citizenship or legal presence for a license, permit, or ID card.

. . . Opponents of the new identification requirements say they're anti-immgrant and could lead to more unlicensed and uninsured drivers on Oregon's roads.

The Republican-dominated Oregon House is eager to get Oregon on board with REAL ID, so it's going to be up to the calmer heads in the state Senate and the Governor's office to challenge this law.