Nat’l ID card: Hypocrisy reigns at Arizona Republic

Illegal aliens accorded more leeway than American citizens

The few remaining readers of the Arizona Republic are well acquainted with the tactic. Like a nagging shrew, repetition is the name of the game. The Sunday March 8, edition took the editorial route, rife with insults and scare tactics, beginning with the headline: “Anti-ID law brings troubles for travelers.” The opening line? “Now they’ve done it.” The fear-mongering comes with the threat of not being able to board an airplane without complying with governmental data gathering. Arizona legislators are called “paranoid,“ and compared to ”knuckleheaded teenagers,” debating “their little fist-shaking bills” and identified as “dollar-store constitutionalists” passing “lunatic legislation.”

This embarrassing attempt at journalism was followed by a March 11, ‘My Turn’ column by the policy director of the Coalition for a Secure Driver’s License in Washington, DC. He is so enamored with pro-amnesty baloney-slinging con man and state Sen. Bob Worsley, (who claimed during his campaign to favor small government) that he mentions what he calls “Worsley’s bill”  four times in two abutting paragraphs. The bill would repeal Arizona’s 2008 legislation prohibiting implementation of this massive governmental overreach.

The idea of American citizens having to produce government authorized identification is repugnant by its very nature. One that unleashes biometric mechanisms for unwarranted surveillance is reprehensible.

The national identity scheme known as REAL ID mandates that each state create a standardized electronic database of all information from every driver’s license issued.  Further, it requires each state to link its electronic database to that of every other state in the nation, effectively creating a nationwide database containing the private information of every individual with a driver’s license in the entire country.

REAL ID would become the key component of a system of identity papers, databases, status and identity checks —- in effect, an “internal passport” with the capacity to track individuals’ movements and activities.

When the issue was illegal aliens, the Arizona Republic derogatorily referred to H.B.1070 as the “show me your papers law,” since a provision allowed law enforcement to check the legal status of persons detained during investigations or traffic stops. When a much more egregious law affecting American citizens is the issue, the hypocrites at the newspaper wholeheartedly support it.

Background on this disreputable issue is fascinating and even more evidence that REAL ID appeals to no one. Arizona banned implementation of the REAL ID Act on June 17, 2008 with passage of  H.B.2677. Although all but characterized by the newspaper as arising from right-wing spew fomenting in a cauldron in the basement of the state legislature, the bill actually had widespread —- or “bi-partisan” support in the newspaper’s favored jargon. It was sponsored by leftist former state Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, now representing AZ CD 9, and former Senate President Russell Pearce, an unwavering conservative.

Further, the ban was signed at the urging of the ACLU by then-Gov. Janet Na­politano, a far left Democrat, who later, as Barack Obama’s Secretary of Homeland Security, headed the department charged with implementing the legislation. Former Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, opted not to partic­ipate in REAL ID. Newly elected Gov. Doug Ducey, also a Republican, has yet to address the issue. His actions will be closely watched.


11 Responses to Nat’l ID card: Hypocrisy reigns at Arizona Republic

  1. Frankly Speaking says:

    Another informative post, SRAZ!
    Best advice? Get a passport and use it when boarding a plane. It’s accepted as ID in the United States and internationally and is actually less intrusive than the so called REAL ID. A passport has the added benefit of getting you out of a police state in the event martial law appears likely to be imposed. Even if you have no plans to travel abroad, a passport for every member of your family is a must. Keep them current.
    In the US, passports issued for adults ages 16 and older are valid for 10 years. Children 15 years of age and under receive passports valid for 5 years. Don’t let them lapse.

  2. MacBeth says:

    Conservatives and liberals are strange bedfellows on this crucial issue.

    The National ACLU actually congratulated Janet Napolitano for signing the bill to opt out of REAL ID. As the old saying goes, “even a broken clock is right twice a day.”

  3. Matt DeGennaro says:

    Congress should repeal this disastrous national ID law. There is no “greater good” that warrants losing our privacy to this extent.
    Our Founders would have been stunned to see government impose a national identity system, the antitheses of the freedom on which this nation is based.

  4. SmallGovt says:

    Actually you now have national ID cards in SS cards and Passports. If this separated the legals and illegals and also served as a passport, I would seriously consider it a good thing.

    • Villanova says:

      .Neither my passport nor Social Security card have biometrics imbedded.

      As to your willingness to “seriously consider national ID a good thing,” let me remind you of this famous quote by Benjamin Franklin: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”

      You sign yourself SmallGovt, yet opt for ever increasing governmental encroachments on our freedoms. You are either jesting or exceedingly uneducated on world history.

      • SmallGovt says:

        Interesting but Franklin never said or would say that there is anything wrong in being able to prove that you are you, and a citizen, and that no one else is you. I don’t worry about Black Helicopters. I worry about a government that buys helicopters they don’t need and pays people astronomical salaries and benefits to fly them on unnecessary missions.

  5. ZOO says:

    On the topic of “credentials” birthright citizenship is up for clearer interpretation in the Senate. CAPS (Californians For Population Stabilization) explains it with this:

    “…Senator David Vitter (R-LA) has introduced an amendment is to eliminate “birthright” citizenship, the American practice of automatically granting citizenship to anyone born in the United States, even those whose parents are here illegally. His amendment to S 178, the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015, would clarify that citizenship at birth is granted only if one of the parents is a U.S. citizen, lawfully-admitted permanent resident alien, or alien on active service in the military.

    Please call your Senators through the Capitol Switchboard toll-free at 866-220-0044 or 202-224-3121…”

    With Republicans in control of Congress, they have the opportunity to stop the magnet of anchor babies and ‘childbirth tourism.’ Now that they have surrendered to Obamnesty and spring is in the air, the land rush across the southern border is going to detonate once again. Will the GOP use their ‘majority’ to even stop this?

    • Clementine says:

      Having a GOP majority doesn’t amount to much when none of them have a spine. The misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment has resulted in the insanity known as “birthright citizenship” and its counterpart “family reunification” which brings in various relatives of the offenders to reunite the family that doesn‘t belong here in the first place. Mark that as grandparents , aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces and nephews on BOTH sides of the family. Among developed nations only the United States and Canada still allow this foolishness.
      The following nations have outlawed the practice. The years in which they did so are beside the nation in parentheses.
      Australia (2007)
      New Zealand (2005)
      Ireland (2005
      France (1993)
      India (1987)
      Malta (1989)
      UK (1983)
      Portugal (1981)

      • SmallGovt says:

        Good info. First we need to tackle this and allowing non citizens to have children here who become citizens. There is no reason both parties cant agree on that.