Thread: Save Act Yes Or No ?

Originally Posted by NoBueno

Originally Posted by Ex_OC

Originally Posted by MW

EX_OC wrote:

The way I understand the REAL ID Act is that the microchip is nothing more than a security measure that THAT ID IS INDEED A VALID REAL ID.

The federal government does not require a microchip in driver's licenses or identification cards that qualify as Real ID. Perhaps you're confusing the Real ID and passport.

MW, no, I don't think I'm confusing the REAL ID with a passport. I just happened to renew my passport last year, 2007, and it came with a microchip -- something that was NOT disclosed to me when I applied. I got an insert in the envelope explaining the microchip embedded in my brand-new passport. It said, and I quote from the insert:

The U.S. Electronic Passport Security Features

Your new U.S. passport contains a small integrated circuit (or "chip") that conforms to the latest international passport standards. This Electronic Passport provides:

*Automated photo verification
*Faster & more accurate immigration inspections; and
*Greater border protection and security.

What are the speical features of an Electronic Passport?

Securely Stored Information

An anti-skimming feature built into the passport book and Basic Access Control technology to control access to the data provide a solid two-tiered approach that prevents unauthorized reading of the data in the chip.

Contactless Chip Technology
The information stored in the Electronic Passport can be read by special chip readers from a close distance.

Uses Digital Signature Technology
This technology is used to verify the authenticity of the data stored on the chip and to prevent alteration of the information of the chip.

Of course, I have no clue what this all means. LOL!! They should get 2nd-Graders to write this literature SO WE ALL CAN UNDERSTAND IT. hahahah.

Well, what I am trying to point out here is: If you are going to get a new passport, you have no choice but to have this microchip embedded in it. Like I said, it was NOT disclosed to me, when I renewed, that there was going to be a microchip in my new passport. In other words, folks, this is the way it is -- POST 9-11 -- take it or leave it. You have no choice if you want a US passport.

Secondly, being as passports are under the purview of the USCIS, which DHS is an agency for, I expect this SAME TECHNOLOGY IS GOING TO BE USED IN THE READ ID ID. Right? And with the enactment of the bill, after 9-11, that ALL US CITIZENS MUST GET A PASSPORT by 20XX if you want to travel ANYWHERE, then I guess you have no choice but to have that chip embedded in your passport.

So what are you going to do? Say no? Curtail your vacations just to within the 50 US states? (Which is ok, of course.) So, if millions of US citizens are OK with having microchips in their passports, how are they gonna fight the REAL ID Act?? Both are using the same technology (and boy, I wish I knew what company that was so I can buy some stock in it! LOL). If Americans say OK to microchips in their passports, why not say OK to the SAME microchip in a separate ID???

You see what I'm presenting here? I'm not taking sides here. I am just presenting the facts -- the fragmented facts. I'm just trying to piece all the fragmented parts together.

What do you all think?

Why not just require everyone to get a passport (They are going to have microchips) instead of creating a separate data base that will be needed with REAL ID.

I didn't know the new passports had microchips in them Ex OC. Mine is up for renewal in 2010.

Interesting...

EXACTLY, NOBUENO. INSTEAD OF HAVING PASSPORTS AND A REAL ID ID, LET'S ALL JUST GET PASSPORTS. PERIOD. END OF STORY.

EX_OC wrote:

MW, no, I don't think I'm confusing the REAL ID with a passport.

I understood you to say that the Real ID (secure driver's license and/or identification card) had a microchip. It doesn't but the passport does. That's why I thought you might be confusing the two.

The Real ID Act does not require the states to use chip technology in their "secure" driver's licenses. That is not one of the minimum requirements that must be met.

It really frustrates me when some of our libertarian brethren come out against the SAVE Act, but at the same time, praise states like Oklahoma for cracking down on illegal immigration. On July 1, it will be mandatory for Oklahoma employers to use E-Verify for every new hire. This new state law would be much more effective if congress passed the SAVE Act, which would close a lot of E-Verify loopholes. Encouraging states to crack down on illegal immigration and discouraging new laws that will help states crack down on illegal immigration is illogical at best and (fill in the blank) at worst.

We don't need a single new law for this to not be a problem but many insist on giving the federal government more power anyway. They don't enforce the law as it is. They implicitly trust the same government who is hellbent on massive immigration both legal and illegal. Illegal immigration is not the problem it is a symptom of a bigger problem. Our government is largely the problem. I don't need a single more encroachment on my/our liberties to fix this problem. I agree with the writer of this article 100%

How the hell did Eisenhower ever effect Operation W**back without a national ID?

Originally Posted by StokeyBob

I have seen them pass bill after bill after bill and the only thing I have ever seen them implement in over three decades is the amnesty and gravy parts for the illegal invaders.

I want to see some action on the laws we have now, now, now, now, now, now, now, now, NOW!!!!

We need to be seeing some arrest of the Revolutionaries in the government that have been aiding and abetting the illegal invaders and also some action against those that have refused to uphold their oaths of office.

I just can't believe many are still getting ANY support in the elections. I wish I could verify some of the results.

Well said, it is funny and sad at the same time to watch people hope for new Legislation when none of the existing Legislation is enforced. The elected Representatives in DC who tried to pass "immigration reform" and even George Bush, Chertoff, said that the laws we have are unenforceable. That makes no sense. We don't need new laws, we need existing laws enforced. WE don't need a biometric system, we need our existing laws enforced. We don't need more big brother databases, we need our existing laws enforced.

I am not a supporter of the SAVE ACT simply because I feel that if our current laws are not enforced,a new set of laws will be so watered down by compromises that it will not make a swatch of difference in the long run.This legislation would give some employers up to 4 years to verify the legal status of workers and is a bad start for any serious enforcement.30 days would have been more reasonable.A company can find a lot of loopholes in 4 years.When the current laws begin to be fully and seriously enforced I would have more faith that additional legislation would be a good idea.Congress needs to show good faith by fully enforcing current laws if they expect citizens to believe that new legislation would ,scout's honor, really,really,really be enforced this time.

The constitution obligates the U.S. to protect each state from invasion and as we all know, one of the main weapons wielded by the current illegal invasion is identity theft. U.S. citizens' identities are literally being stolen right now to continue the cheap illegal labor trade. The damage that identity theft has done to Americans is well documented on ALIPAC and it's a shame that we can't just "enforce the existing laws". Heck, Chertoff can't even make the IRS send no match letters to employers without the Ninth Circus Court's blessing. The judicial and executive branches have been historically antagonistic to our cause whereas congress is forced to listen to us or at least demagogue us a little bit. If congress doesn't impose harsh penalties on sanctuary cities and make cheap illegal labor pimps do the perp walk, the balkanization of the U.S. will continue unabated. The SAVE Act is a good first step in the right direction so jump on the team and c'mon in for the big win.

P.S. I recently got a new job. The company did a full background check on me: credit, education, references, driving record, health, etc... I also would have let them run my SS number through eVerify for no other reason than to make sure that there's no monkey business going on with it.

AlturaCt wrote:

Our government is largely the problem. I don't need a single more encroachment on my/our liberties to fix this problem. I agree with the writer of this article 100%

Please tell me how (be specific) the SAVE Act is going to encroach upon your liberties. I asked the same question of another opponent to the SAVE Act but was not provided a response.

It would seem that most opponents of the SAVE Act have one thing in common, and that is a fanatic love of Ron Paul. If I may, let me remind you of one fact I hope you're not overlooking - Paul has never had an interest in going after the employers of illegal aliens. This is a well documented fact that can't be disputed with logic. Furthermore, Ron Paul is extremely weak on the border security issue. He says the border should be secured, however, he frequently votes against (or fails to support) legislation that would do exactly that.

SUPPORT THE SAVE ACT, IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO!

Originally Posted by Lynne

I don't want my freedoms infringed upon in the process of demanding that employers stop hiring illegals. If I am all of a sudden required to have Real ID to get hired somewhere, I don't support that. I'm not clear on this E-Verify system and I need to look into it more before I spend time pressuring lawmakers to sign the Save Act bill.

Amen Lynn. I say it infringes on your right as an American to pursue happiness. If you are not able to work, that right has been infringed.

STAND UP FOR FREEDOM! IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO!

JP wrote:

Amen Lynn. I say it infringes on your right as an American to pursue happiness. If you are not able to work, that right has been infringed.

Once again, how does the SAVE Act infringe upon an American citizen or legal immigrants right to work? Why won't any of the opponents to the SAVE Act answer this very simple question?

Strawman logic and rhetoric has no place in an honest debate and it is intellectually dishonest to pretend it does.