RSS Feed MenuThe big talk radio topic yesterday was Sen. Grassley’s proposal to require immigrants to show photo ID before buying into new health exchanges. See the headline on Michelle Malkin’s blog for a representative conservative reaction:
Yes, Senate Dems do want illegal alien Obamacare coverage
Now let me stipulate: I speak here as someone who favored national photo ID before national photo ID was cool. I argued for just such a thing in the book I coauthored with Richard Perle way back in 2003.
If conservatives and Republicans have come around to accept this view, that would be a happy day. But I fear as I listen that the debate only confirms that conservatives these days just don’t think before they talk.
Follow the reasoning here:
1) It’s impossible to write a law that says that immigrants and only immigrants must show ID. How would that work?
“Excuse me ma’am, are you an immigrant? If so, may I see your ID?”
“No, no señor! I’m a member of the DAR!”
Obviously if we are going to enforce a legals-only rule for health insurance, everybody will have to show ID.
2) But what ID? Unfortunately, driver’s licenses do not prove legal residency. Even if the REAL ID Act goes into effect as currently scheduled in 2017 – not an outcome to bet money on – driver’s licenses will remain an uncertain proof of legal residency status.
Conversely, there are many legal residents who lack licenses. They are too old, or they drove drunk, or they are legally blind, or they just never got around to acquiring one. What are they supposed to do?
If we’re going to require people to prove their residency status before enrolling in a health exchange, we’re going to need a reliable system of national identification that enrolls everybody, drivers and non-drivers.
3) Again: I’m all for this! But can you imagine what the right blogosophere and talk radio would say if the Obama administration proposed a national identity card? That would be the final proof of the president’s Hitlerite intentions!
* * *
The Grassley debate is a good debate to have. And I do share Malkin’s suspicions that this administration would like to extend subsidized health coverage to illegals – although probably via an amnesty that ended their illegality.
But if this debate is to yield any useful result, conservatives need to be ready to answer the obvious questions: What kind of card? How would it work? What’s our plan? We need to think before we emote.
anniemargret // Oct 1, 2009 at 6:13 pm
mycelf: Maybe Frum should start a conservative hottie series along the lines of conservatives and their dogs.
Well, he already ran a conservative and their dogs series. I think this is already ‘filler’ don’t you?
Ann Coulter’s dog is far better looking than she is. And probably a lot nicer, too.
Travis // Oct 1, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Isn’t it just easier to hate/fear/demonize illegal aliens? I mean, it appears to requiere effort to get to know your neighbors better, see that they too are humans trying to take care of their families, etc. I’d rather just not work/think too hard and decide they’re evil.
mycelf // Oct 1, 2009 at 7:52 pm
@anniemargret — you’re right on all counts.
i’m getting annoyed with the noise to signal ratio on the new majority. i don’t really think a younger canadian spin on tired lines of thought do much toward the “modernization and renewal of the Republican party and the conservative movement.”
while frum is not as obnoxious as beck, at least beck purports himself to be a ‘rodeo clown’ rather than someone trying to right a sinking political ship.
wittymoniker // Oct 1, 2009 at 8:11 pm
mycelf – Your comments in this thread certainly aren’t adding anything to the noise to signal ratio.
EscapeVelocity // Oct 1, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Here is an intelligent article…
Obama’s not-so-secret plan to raise taxes
http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2009/09/30/obamas-not-so-secret-plan-to-raise-taxes/
SFTor1 // Oct 1, 2009 at 9:33 pm
There seems to be some people here who realize that we live in an imperfect society where it’s not always so easy to find perfect solutions. Illegal immigrants contribute significantly to the U.S. economy without getting much in return. More than anything hey are welcomed here by agribusiness and the service industry (restaurants etc.) Those are traditionally Republican constituents, so there is a conflict of interest in the Republican tent on that one.
Legalization is probably not such a bad idea. Treating them like human beings is a moral imperative.
EscapeVelocity // Oct 1, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Issue 1, 2004
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
El Paso Branch
Workers’ Remittances to Mexico
http://www.dallasfed.org/research/busfront/bus0401.html
In 2003, Mexico received nearly $13.3 billion in workers’ remittances, an amount equivalent to about 140 percent of foreign direct investment and 71 percent of oil exports. Continued growth in remittances is expected in 2004. The latest data, through March 2004, show remittances almost 22 percent higher than the same period a year ago. As a result of their vigorous growth, workers’ remittances now occupy third place as a foreign exchange generator for Mexico. Maquiladoras continue to be the top foreign exchange generator, at $18.4 billion in 2003, followed by oil at $15 billion.
(Thats 15 billion that wont be spent here in local communities, sucked out of the local economies, which has a multiplying effect as it moves around.)
Although more than 90 percent of Mexican municipalities received some remittance payments in 2000, just 20 percent (or 463 of 2,443 municipalities) received almost half the total.
GIS Tracks Earnings Sent Home by Mexican Migrants
By German Zárate-Hoyos and Scott W. Anderson, State University of New York, Cortland
http://www.esri.com/news/arcuser/0205/remittance1of2.html
For states with a significant number of migrant workers, remittances are extremely important. These states receive significantly more funds from remittances than from federal spending. Remittances to Guanajuato are 14 times greater than all federal social expenditures in that state. In Hidalgo, Puebla, Oaxaca, and Veracruz, remittances represent 100 percent more than all federal outlays in these states.
EscapeVelocity // Oct 1, 2009 at 9:48 pm
We can treat them like Mexico treats human beings that break their immigration and employment laws.
mycelf // Oct 1, 2009 at 9:57 pm
what can ’seriously’ be said about this topic?
there are many systems already in place for providing proof of identity (drivers license, id cards, student ids, passports, etc).
if someone wants to participate in the exchange, then they must provide proof of identity. it isn’t rocket surgery or brain science. we do it all the time for bank accounts, credit card transactions, property rentals, getting into the bar, buying alcohol, etc. while the systems are not perfect, they are more than adequate for the need.
really, what more is there to say?
EscapeVelocity // Oct 1, 2009 at 10:01 pm
True.
In fact the SS# is abused as an ID. Which was predicted a long long time ago.
Ive have video rental clerks request my SS#, to which I reply are you donating to my account?
balconesfault // Oct 1, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Escape – not all of those remittances are from illegals. In fact, documented workers generally make significantly better wages than undocumented, and thus can be expected to send more money back to their families.
Meanwhile, I’ll see your remittances, and bump you 6-7 billion a year in illegals contributions to the Social Security trust fund.
http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/apr2006/pi20060407_072803.htm
Each year, for example, the U.S. Social Security Administration maintains roughly $6 billion to $7 billion of Social Security contributions in an “earnings suspense file” — an account for W-2 tax forms that cannot be matched to the correct Social Security number. The vast majority of these numbers are attributable to undocumented workers who will never claim their benefits.
EscapeVelocity // Oct 1, 2009 at 11:30 pm
Meanwhile, I’ll see your remittances, and bump you 6-7 billion a year in illegals — balconesfault
LOL!
BTW, Im not that hostile to Mexican workers. But I do have nuanced positions, including reciprical easing of American immigration and property ownership laws in Mexico.
If I can figure this stuff out, then there is no excuse for the dingleberry’s up in Congress not to be able to understand good policy prescriptions, law changes, enforcement and negotiation with Mexico.
Good Lord!
EscapeVelocity // Oct 2, 2009 at 1:37 am
The Next Right has already conceded the battle…..Frum is fading fast.
http://thenextright.com/jon-henke/new-battlefield-old-guard
As I said, its not an either or proposition. There is room for both, and we need them both. The Left was very successful in pushing their agenda with loons dressed up like cows beating plastic buckets and throwing molotov cocktails at the WTO and G8/G20 meetings for decades.
You can always disavow them, while still enjoying the service they provide in attacking the other side viciously and unrelentingly. And we can do it with a bit more aplomb and dedication to the truth than the Left as well.
Kevin B // Oct 2, 2009 at 9:37 am
“Um, like a Green Card, Visa, Passport?
Hello!”
Well, I have a passport, but no Visa or Green Card, since I was born and raised in the USA. My brothers don’t have passports at all, nor do their children. How are we to prove we are not illegal aliens?
If an ID check doesn’t require all people to be checked–if it is checked only for those who look or sound “foreign”–then it will quickly be struck down in the courts.
Many places that sell alcohol or cigarettes will check ID on anyone who tries to purchase those items, even if the customer looks 90 years old.
The answer seems simple to me: If the public option insurance card is also a photo ID, then the providers will need to check it so they know where to file the insurance. If you don’t have an insurance card, the provider will not be able to bill insurance. Enforcement is based on the provider wanting to get paid.
If you have private insurance, then the provider doesn’t need to see ID (but may ask anyway). Presumably, you’re paying for that insurance, so you’re not a drain on the taxpayers.
If you’re paying cash, then the provider doesn’t need to see ID (and you are not a drain on the taxpayers anyway).
In emergencies, the care may come first, and the ID check later.
Note that the providers are not checking citizenship or legal residency. They are checking whether they will get paid. Turning doctors into INS agents strikes me as totalitarian.
The place to check for legal status is in the process of applying for the public option, and especially when applying for government subsidies when you can’t afford the premium.
midcon // Oct 2, 2009 at 9:54 am
I have held a security clearance since before I was old enough to legally drink. That means the government has had my fingerprints; knows who my relatives and friends are; knows who I have had a a personal relationship with; has knowledge of my fianances; and knows whether I have had any legal issues, including speeding tickets (yeah, I’ve had a few).
They are not parked outside my house and I am not under surveillance (well as far as I know). The very last thing in the world I fear is a national id used to obtain essential services that are partially or wholly provided by the taxpayer.
If you are self sufficient and never need to avail yourself of government services that are paid for by the taxpayer then you should not need identification. BUT if you take a stinking dime of my tax money, I want some valid form of identification that verifies you have a right to those services. If you go to the ER and pay cash – God bless you. But if you go there and expect the taxpayer to foot some of the bill – show me who you are. Ditto on voting in my elections; driving on my roads; crossing my borders; and collecting Social Security and Medicare – which I, the taxpayer, have so kindly provided you.
If you in your paranoia believe that the government is coming to get you (no matter how silly that sounds), you should be informed that they usually have better things to do. Even so, if you are filled with that overriding fear, then stay off the radar and stay out of my wallet.
A national ID is would be so useful and beneficial for mitigating the effects of illegal immigration; voter registration; medical care; lost or abducted children; and a host of other services that it should be intuitively obvious that we should have it. Just as every child born in this country must have a social security number so should we all have a national id.
sinz54 // Oct 2, 2009 at 10:22 am
Chekote:
I have returned.
As you know, I have some nontrivial health problems, so I was not available for much of yesterday.
sinz54 // Oct 2, 2009 at 10:25 am
midcon: A national ID is would be so useful and beneficial for mitigating the effects of illegal immigration; voter registration; medical care; lost or abducted children; and a host of other services that it should be intuitively obvious that we should have it.
Even the civil libertarian, Alan Dershowitz, decided to favor a national ID card (with strict privacy protections) in the wake of the 9-11 terrorist attack.
At the time, he said that all persons have a right to privacy. But no person has a right to be anonymous. Allowing masses of people to tool around the nation in total anonymity is something we can no longer afford in an age of terrorism.
midcon // Oct 2, 2009 at 4:45 pm
sinz; I like that thought – the right to privacy but limits on anonymity.
SFTor1 // Oct 3, 2009 at 1:21 pm
escape says: “We can treat them like Mexico treats human beings that break their immigration and employment laws.”
If you would like to join escape on his race to the bottom it’s a good idea to jump on now.