September 28, 2015
By: Kelly Diamond, Publisher
I find myself often engaging in conversations having to do with moving and relocating. I’ve done it my whole life. My family was moving on average every two years my entire childhood, not because my dad was military or anything. He was just restless, I suppose. My sisters went on to plant some roots, but I carried on the tradition of moving every so often. I’ve lived Oregon, Michigan, Texas, and New Hampshire, and all over California. I also spent a little time out in Japan and Australia.
When I talk to people about immigration, some of the major allegations are that immigrants “steal” American jobs, overload our welfare doles, and all the violent criminals are coming over the border. So I pose it to them this way:
- If someone moved from Texas to California and found gainful employment, are they a Texan stealing a Californian’s job?
- What if a violent criminal were to feel the heat of the law catching up to him, and he decided to move from Nevada to Utah to get away from Nevada law enforcement?
- What if someone moved from a red state like Texas, to a blue state like Massachusetts or California for the better welfare programs?
The response to which is overwhelmingly: Well, that’s different! It’s the same country. We have interstate agreements that allow for that sort of thing.
Uh-huh. I see. So, if we have a North American Union like Europe has the European Union, then it would be okay? All those problems listed out earlier would become null and void? Migration would no longer be this nefarious and sinister act of global conquest or international invasion, but rather a simple act of free individuals.
Why do I bring this all up?
Well, for one thing, Global Wealth Protection has been a stalwart advocate of second passports, second citizenships, and second residencies. The greatest strategy in achieving ultimate freedom is sometimes playing strictly by the rules.
Turns out, however, that Americans might need a passport just to travel from state to state! Considering that the majority of Americans don’t even have a FIRST passport, this might pose a problem. What happened to that interstate agreement? The one that made migration both legal and benign. Well, as the United States moves toward nationalizing everything from healthcare to marriage, it should come as no surprise that the US is trying to nationalize identification as well.
(If this isn’t totally reminiscent of the various Nazi era Kennkarta, I don’t know what is!)
The REAL ID Act was passed back in 2005 at the behest of the 9/11 Commission. Apparently, having a national standard for personal identification is SO integral to our national security, it’s taken ten years for anyone to even take it seriously enough to write about it. The Patriot Act was sold and resold on similar grounds. That was allowed to expire. But for some reason, REAL ID still has its dukes up ready to take a swing at liberty!
It’s true that this bill was passed. It’s true that it was meant to be implemented in phases. But it’s also true that states have been resisting and filing extensions for years. Not ONE state is in full compliance with REAL ID.
However, the claim is that starting sometime in 2016 people traveling with driver licenses from New York, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Hampshire and American Samoa will not be allowed to use those licenses as valid IDs to fly domestically. Their states will either need to get in compliance with the structure and format outlined within the REAL ID Act or the individuals will need to apply for a national ID such as passports and passport cards, as well as permanent resident cards, U.S. military ID, and DHS trusted traveler cards such a Global Entry and NEXUS.
The TSA will also accept Enhanced Driver’s Licenses, which are currently used en lieu of passports for travel to and from Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean. Of the noncompliant states, only New York and Minnesota offer them.
This isn’t a liberal vs conservative, right wing vs left wing issue. Opponency to REAL ID has forged some bipartisan alliances such as that between Republican Governor Bobby Jindal and the ACLU.
“REAL ID creates a national ID card that has nothing to do with the ability to drive and everything to do with government snooping on innocent people. We don’t need that, and never have. If it were so essential to national security, it would have been enforced years ago.” — Marjorie Esman, executive director of the Louisiana chapter of the ACLU.
I don’t know how REAL ID is supposed to make us safer either in theory or in practice, and there isn’t any substantive evidence that it can or will achieve any such metric, but the stated purpose of it remains as a matter of “national security”.
The reality is, that it’s a federally unfunded project which will cost millions to each state offering no real benefit to anyone other than the busy bodies at the federal level. The federal government has spent over $250 million on this ridiculous act of its own, and the best it can do is cheer that they have nearly 80% compliance to a watered down version of the bill.
Jim Harper over at the Cato Institute thinks this is much ado about nothing. I’m inclined to agree, however, so long as there is a law on the books, any administration could impetuously drop the hammer and fully implement this heavy handedly from the top down. Mr. Harper sees no need for state or individual compliance since the very idea that a handful of people from a handful of jurisdictions would be denied free travel within the same country is politically combustible.
This goes back to what the devoted patriots claim made it “okay” for American citizens to migrate from state to state harmlessly: that interstate reciprocity agreement. It’s sweet how they take for granted something as simple as interstate travel and migration. At one point, international travel and migration was equally simple. In fact, it was only a few generations ago that my great grandparents showed up from Russia, illiterate, totally unable to speak a lick of English, with several children in tow, broke and unemployed, seeking a new life in the United States. The “immigration process” consisted of a TB test and a name change.
Right now, it’s just talk and a relatively inactive law. But a US Kennkarta, coupled with FATCA, and various new measures to deny Americans the right to freely travel is downright scary. The US Secretary of State has a tremendous amount of latitude to deny someone a passport to deactivate an existing passport ranging from allegations of “aiding a terrorist” to delinquency on owed taxes.
“There is no definition of what ‘aided’ means, no chance to dispute the Secretary’s decision, no trial or presentation of evidence, and in fact any evidence the government has can be classified as secret so that you may not see it. In effect the Secretary of State can unilaterally consign you to internal exile and there is nothing you can do about it,” writes Daniel McAdams of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.
That the Secretary of State is now being roped in to help corral $400 million in delinquent tax revenue shows just how desperate the US has become. Clearly, taxes are not voluntary and travel is hardly a right. This is the land of the free? Interesting what passes for freedom these days.
If any of this has you clenching your wallet a little tighter, it might be time to schedule a consultation to see how you can dodge some or all of this nonsense! Click here now, and cover your assets!
12 Responses
You fall for it every time.
I find the idea of a pluralistic society humorous. You think people will just continue to tolerate each other? What happens when they don’t? There has to be a governing party involved or society won’t survive. What successful company do you know that operates without management? That allows everyone to come and go as they choose? Regulations and guidelines keep companies productive, efficient, and successful. Everything in life works that way. You can’t just throw a group of people together with no leadership and no authority and call that a civilized society.
You say that laws should only come into play after a crime is comitted? How ridiculous is that?! You’re basically telling people that it’s okay to drive drunk, as long as no one gets hurt. It’s okay to sell cocaine as long as no one dies from an overdose. It’s okay to let jihadists into the country as long as none of them blow anyone up. And if they do decide to strap on a suicide vest and blow away themselves along with 50 others……what “recourse” will assuage that? You can’t punish someone who’s dead. The best method to use is regulation…and ENFORCEMENT.
You didn’t find pluralism humorous in your abortion example. You all but made the case for it.
I think it is in the best interests of every individual to tolerate one another, but also have the freedom to disassociate with those they find intolerable. There’s certainly enough space for that.
You equate a government to business management? What business do you know that extorts its employees for acting out of line? What business do you know that cages its employees for acting out of line and then garnishes the wages of the other employees to pay for that incarceration? What business charges you to work there and then charges you to leave? There are, however, businesses that are loosening up their rules because it does wonders for company morale. They also have a model of rewarding their better producers rather than taking from the producers and paying the underproducers or the nonproducers.
Yeah, you would do well to not put a successful enterprise in the same ring as a failing government that is marching its way toward $20 TRILLION in debt and successfully managed to debase the value of its own currency by over 90% in just 100 years.
Businesses have a contractual arrangement with their employees and their relationship is consensual and voluntary. They agree to terms up front. I don’t know of any business that can hold their employees hostage. That arrangement is contingent upon both parties consenting to it. I can’t show up to any business and demand payment, they must hire me. A business cannot scoop me off the street and demand I work for them, I must consent to it.
There are varying models of successful business management. Winco is 100% employee owned, for example. Walmart is not. Both are successful. There isn’t ONE way to manage, and businesses are free to succeed OR fail. So if the model fails, then they fail. Reputation of course has a lot to do with it as well. But there is no ONE centralized business model. You do know what that would be right? That’s communism: everything from soup to nuts is centrally planned, produced, distributed and owned. So how far are you willing to take your central planning model? How much control do you feel the government is entitled to?
Moreover, the mere presence of a government is no guarantee of order or civility. There are plenty of places around the world with governments that are anything but civil. I think you put way too much stock in government to think that its mere presence introduces order when history proves otherwise.
You actually can put a group of people together without leadership or authority and have a very civilized outcome. The chaos is usually introduced when someone claims authority over others… not when people are going about their business. Many of the police brutality incidents are a result of police intrusion into an otherwise peaceful situation and escalating them to a point of casualties. Sandra Bland comes to mind, as does Eric Garner. When the police went on strike in NY to protest their mayor’s sympathetic statements, crime dropped considerably in the city of New York. Go figure.
I don’t say laws SHOULD only come into play after a crime is committed, I’m saying they DO. Look at people on the highways. Hardly any of them are obeying the speed laws. So the law comes into play AFTER they have already violated it. The speed laws don’t produce slower drivers. Violent crime is the same thing. Either people are inclined to be violent people and will find a way to commit those acts or they aren’t and would never harm anyone regardless of the law. I certainly don’t need laws to respect the rights of individuals. I’m perfectly capable of holding myself to such a simple standard.
That’s right: I’m saying you can drive drunk, tired, high, distracted… and so long as you do no harm, you aren’t a criminal. We let people juggle knives and torches in the public square for goodness sakes. If they harm someone they are liable. Otherwise they continue to juggle. I can run with scissors and hunt with a rifle and so long as no one is harmed and property is not damaged, no crime has happened.
You seem to be advocating for a pre-crime institution whereby people who NEARLY harm others are treated as if they actually DID harm others. How many times have you stopped short on a road and NEARLY hit the person in front of you? Should we criminalize that? How many times have you almost bumped into someone, but didn’t? That was potentially assault right? Do you also punish your children for ALMOST tipping something over? Or ALMOST spilling the milk? That’s essentially what you are arguing when you criminalize behavior that could potentially harm someone but doesn’t.
It’s absolutely okay to sell cocaine, and NO the proprietor of those drugs is not liable for how the customer ultimately uses it… any more than a car dealer is responsible for their customers getting into an accident after they drive off the lot! The person using the drugs, and the driver are responsible for their actions. And if the user dies, then that kinda sorted itself out didn’t it? Was it George Carlin who suggested to take the warning labels off things and let the Darwin take over? Natural consequences tend to do a fine job at keeping people in check. That’s why people don’t need their parents to still remind them to look both ways. All it takes is one near hit, and people get it: look both ways.
It’s okay to let jihadists into the country? You mean terrorists. Jihad by definition is a spiritual war that refers to an inner struggle, like that of someone trying to overcome an addiction. Anyone trying to be a better person than they were the day before is waging jihad. But I assume you mean terrorists. What kind of terrorist would they be if they came into the country and never perpetrated an act of terrorism? I’ll tell you: they wouldn’t be a terrorist at all! It takes an act of terror to make a terrorist.
You think laws prevent acts of terror too? LOL The TSA hasn’t found ONE terrorist. Nor has the NSA. But the Pentagon is the most secure place in the US if not the world. Didn’t see the planes coming? Hell, couldn’t even get video footage of the planes coming. The US has been spying on the EU and its citizens too… didn’t see the Paris even coming. It’s already illegal to blow stuff up. Yet people still manage to do it. Laws don’t, won’t, and can’t stop that sort of stuff from happening. All the school shootings took place on campuses that were “gun free zones”. It was against the law to bring the guns there! But the shooters still did it. So yes. The law is there for the surviving victims. And no, you can’t get any recourse from dead people.
Wallets and cars get stolen all the time and no one is ever brought to trial because rarely is someone ever apprehended. So people get away with crimes despite the law too. That’s real life.
You made no case for regulations or enforcement. IF I were to even entertain your need for government, we could take that of the US and her constitution. There’s a really pesky clause in there that entitles everyone accused of a crime to “due process”. It’s annoying because what it does is shut down your entire premise for a presumption of guilt until proven innocent. That’s how due process works. You are presumed innocent until proven guilty. That you and the politicians seek to criminalize behavior that has no victim is like using a preposition without following it up with an object: it’s wrong because it’s an incomplete event. Without a victim, you have no crime. And without an object you have no need for a preposition.
I appreciate your point of view but really do think it would be different if you had been through what I have. Experiences have a way of guiding our views. A woman can spend years picketing at abortion clinics and then one day be gang raped. Suddenly her stance is not so certain. A man can say the cops have no right to pull people over for swerving and then ask how much they’ve had to drink. Until years later when his wife is killed by a drunk driver…..who he found out had a history of driving recklessly when drunk. Regardless of whether you like it or not, rules are put in place to PREVENT and PROTECT people. If you think rules/laws don’t deter people, then you are wrong.
Millions of dollars are spent on advertising and marketing. Why? To persuade people’s thinking. To get people to think that one product is better than another. It obviously works, as marketing companies are very successful. But aren’t they using the same form of mind control? A person has the right to choose whether they get behind the wheel drunk, and a person has the right to choose what wrinkle cream they buy. However; that choice will undoubtly be influenced by the affect of what they hear everyday. Fear of the law works, just like marketing and advertising work. You can’t get rid of them just because you don’t like the government or you don’t like the big bad marketing firms.
No, I would not call for the infringement of a single right of any individual no matter the experience, as my principles are not circumstantial. Unfortunate things happen, and laws give an illusion of safety by showing a busy government that ultimately generates paltry results at best and new corrupt problems in the process. Laws don’t prevent bad things from happening. That’s why we still have murder and rape and drunk driving in the United States. Those numbers aren’t mitigated by there being a law about it. The law is there for after the fact… after the crime has already been committed. And for there to be a crime, there must be victims. And for there to be victims, rights must be violated. So driving drunk unto itself isn’t a crime. Killing and harming people is. And the law is there, at least in theory, to offer recourse for those adversely affected.
Experiences do shape our views, but that isn’t a free pass to let emotion misguide our judgment. If you need a law to not violate people’s rights, then you have a serious moral problem that laws will never solve. It’s like the anti-discrimination laws: you force people who don’t like one another to associate, and all you get is resentment and social tension. You don’t eliminate racism or bigotry that way which is the REAL problem at hand. The Klan is still around, wrongheaded as they are.
The government’s job isn’t to protect you. That’s your personal responsibility. I believe Ben Franklin said something to the effect of: those who forsake a little liberty for safety, deserve neither. He also said something to the effect of safety without liberty is prison. I agree, and would not allow my personal experiences to drive us to a place of imprisonment just to appease my own sensibilities. It is neither in the best interest of individuals or society.
It’s been proven time and again that carrot/stick approaches to human behavior don’t work and least of all generate genuine outcomes. We have the highest incarceration rate in the world. Our laws are worthless if it winds up ruining lives and wrecking the wallet of the country. Social engineering through laws is compulsion and force. Again, a page out of the North Korean playbook. It doesn’t boil down to what I like or not. It’s about understanding basic sociology and knowing some modicum of history.
Marketing companies are using free speech to assuage people’s purchasing patterns. It’s not mind control if you don’t have clay for brains. It’s powerful communication, to be sure. But ultimately is years of small messages culminating in either successful enterprise or a failed one. Using messaging is moral… using force on the other hand is immoral. So sell your point of view without force… market it… and those who agree will follow.
I think you are on the right track with your abortion example. While I find abortion to be an abomination, I have no intention of outlawing or criminalizing it for the very reason you laid out: what if the woman was raped? Worse still what are the unintended consequences of criminalization? Back alley procedures? Unsanitary and unaccountable medical practices? More death?
While experience shapes our views, circumstances determine our choices. And in your abortion example pluralism is the solution. Me imposing my will on such a person under those circumstances no matter my disdain for the act or practice is unacceptable. I cannot force someone to go to term… any more than you can force people to stay in one place or another to do your bidding.
Pluralism vs populism… the former triumphs.
So according to you, parents are just a “privilege”? Kids shouldn’t feel that they have a right to a mom or dad? Then why did they have kids to begin with?! You obviously don’t have any children or you would understand that they aren’t just eggs to be dropped and then left to hatch on their own. Nope….sorry. I do believe that a person is privileged to have kids, but those kids are not expendable….you DON’T have the right to leave them. If someone doesn’t want to be a parent, then don’t have kids! Or if you do, at least give them to an adoptive family who will love them. But to spread your seed and then just run away…..that takes a special breed of loser. And no doubt a big ass can of karma will come their way!
Obviously this is a very personal subject for you, and you are having a hard time staying objective… to the point where you’ve shifted into some Machiavelli mental trap. This “by any means necessary” binding of people together is a short-sighted point of view. Forcing people to stay in any location for any reason outside their own free will begets several unintended consequences. Forcing people to stay in a country that is war-torn, for example, leads to collateral damage and other social outbursts such as riots and mass migration (e.g. Syria) Forcing people to stay in abusive relationships to uphold the image of “family values” is obviously unacceptable. Forcing people to stay in a country, state, city, or house is called a hostage situation by definition. So the company or presence of any individual must therefore be a privilege, and an arrangement that must be agreeable to those parties involved.
I understand your intentions here, and the incredibly narrow context under which you are making sweeping claims of legislation. Certainly RealID will do absolutely NOTHING to address child abandonment. And while that is certainly a very unfortunate issue, perhaps the adoptive process needs some revisiting to make adoption a more viable option.
You are disappointed by the choices of others. I am too. But the solution to that isn’t imposing tyranny on 320 million people to get at the few. The solution is understanding how or if you can do anything to change those circumstances. If you are part of the problem, then change. If you are not, then find a way to be part of a lasting and peaceful solution. As I said earlier, our ideas of a “perfect world” are diametrically opposed, so our solutions to the problems we see will likewise be so. I can only entreat you to put your personal feelings aside, and allow logic and reason to navigate your course when formulating your world view. The United States has made enough emotional decisions when it comes to domestic and foreign policy to the point of mortgaging the futures of generations not yet born. Fear, shame, guilt are irrational premises by which to organize a civilized society. And it is those same emotions that have lead to countless atrocities throughout human history. I won’t indulge it. The problems are numerous, but the solutions must be peaceful if they are to be solutions at all. Any idiot can threaten someone into doing their bidding under duress. It takes a reasoning and rational man to get them to follow without the threat of force.
” Way too many people feel like it’s okay to just come and go whenever they choose.”
My God. The complex on this one. Is your life so full of fear that you feel the need to control others? You’re truly willing to to let more than 300 million people be collateral damage in a vain attempt to try and harness a few who simply don’t want to be around. If someone wants to leave you, let them go and be done with it. To carry on becomes a sign of mental and emotional instability.
“.Any country that allows a dad or a mom to take off on their kids and just throw a few bucks or dumb gifts their way….that’s a country that needs LESS personal liberties and MORE accountability.”
Allows this? Hell, the messed up family courts nearly mandate it by default. Then spiteful, prideful exes attempting to use the system to harm a former spouse do nothing to leave incentive to stay. Former spouses should simply be allowed equal time with children at their own expense, not battling it out to see who can squeeze themselves into the role of welfare recipient while cutting off the others access to the children.
And while you’re arguing for less personal liberty, you may want to consider the likelihood that your own liberty will be constricted and consumed. It is the history of every government action.
“Parents would put aside their selfishness for the sake of their children. Responsibility would be inherent in every person. ”
Were this to be true, there would be no destructive custody cases. No ridiculous accusations that had no merit, only intended to alienate one parent from his/her children. No crippling “child support”, that more often than not is simply payments to the hurt feelings of a frightened lonely person who makes themselves a package deal with the kids, in a weak attempt to add value to themselves.
Capitalism tends to foster the individual’s pursuit of their goals and happiness, much to the dismay of others who do not wish for others to be happy.
Socialism, on the other hand, tends to foster a collective malaise of equal misery, much to the delight of those who cannot be happy.
RealID would definitely make it harder for a dead beat dad to take off on his kids!!
In that way, I like the idea. Way too many people feel like it’s okay to just come and go whenever they choose. If they don’t want to take responsibility for their life, they just pick up and move.
People can preach all they want about “personal liberties” and how the government shouldn’t interfere in their lives. But look what happens when people ARE given the right to choose…..they shirk their responsibilities and skip town, or they sit on their ass griping about the government. Rules are put in place BECAUSE of people like that. In a perfect world, everyone would be of sound mind. They would work hard and take care of their families. Parents would put aside their selfishness for the sake of their children. Responsibility would be inherent in every person. But unfortunately, that’s just not the world we live in.
Any country that allows a dad or a mom to take off on their kids and just throw a few bucks or dumb gifts their way….that’s a country that needs LESS personal liberties and MORE accountability. Bring on the RealID! We’ll see how far the loser parents can run then!!
1. Real ID has nothing to do with the legalities of family matters. It’s initial purpose was to address issues of immigration and has since expanded to issues of emigration as it pertains to capital flight. Family law is a states’ rights issue and varies accordingly, not a federal one. There are already laws in place that preclude international travel for obligor’s who are in arrears. Moreover, there is no way to legislate civility. If there were, then courts in general would do a better job of it. Instead, we live in a very entitled and litigious society; hardly the makings of anything remotely resembling civility.
2. People move for various reasons, and it is not the state’s place to evaluate the validity or righteousness of those reasons.
3. Rights are not “given”. Rights are inherent and inalienable. And the ability to travel and freely associate (or disassociate) with people are both rights. Privileges are given and thus can also be taken away. For example, it is a privilege to eat at a restaurant. The owners reserve the RIGHT to refuse service to anyone for any reason. The right to free association here trumps that of the feelings/sensibilities of the customers or onlookers.
4. People regularly exercise their rights in ways that aren’t agreeable to others. Racists say racist things, for example. We might not LIKE it, but that isn’t a logical argument to abridge that right, but rather an emotional one. If we find someone’s actions or words offensive, we reserve the right to likewise disassociate from those people. People don’t like what political pundits say, but the solution for bad speech isn’t censorship, but rather more speech. Pluralism vs Populism.
5. Rules or laws… if I am to even indulge their necessity… are not there to ensure people act as you think is right. They are there as protocols for when rights are actually violated. While I might not want people to be prostitutes or drug addicts, I respect each individual’s right to live their lives as they see fit. In your example, an individual moving away from their ex-spouse and/or children is them exercising their right to freely travel, pursue happiness, disassociate, seek employment, etc. I won’t presume to know the circumstances surrounding the situation you described. But people do this all the time! They fire employees, they quit jobs, they break up with significant others, people boycott businesses, nations secede… And it can be tumultuous. But laws aren’t there to spare feelings or hardships.
6. “In a perfect world…” oh the wish list we can compose, and how different they would obviously be. It is for that reason that I oppose social engineering through legislation: because everyone’s idea of perfection is so subjective and myriad. While you take the populist position, I take the pluralist position. In as much as I disagree with the entire premise of your post, I would defend to the death your right to pursue it, to the extent that it did not interfere with my own pursuits. You are obviously free to build up associations with likeminded individuals and create a community predicated on those values… as is every other individual.
7. “Any country that allows a dad or a mom to take off on their kids”… again, it’s not about allowing people. Coming and going isn’t a privilege. It’s a right. If coming and going were a privilege, as you clearly seem to think it is, then what you are essentially arguing is for the keeping of hostages and slaves. To control the movements of individuals or limit their movements is to imprison them. This sounds like something we might find in the North Korean playbook. Additionally, this presumes that people have a moral claim over the actions or inactions of others, which is patently false, outside the context of restitution. Since there is no moral argument to compel someone to do your bidding, then your only recourse is to find a legal argument (or create on as the case may be). And it’s fairly obvious that legality and morality have very little overlap (e.g. slavery, Jim Crow laws, border control, prohibition, etc.)
8. It would appear that you are willing to ride roughshod over the rights of millions of individuals to exact vengeance and control over a small population of people you don’t like. That is absolutely not what laws are for. Noble as your intentions might be, they are emotionally motivated and subjective. This is a consistent problem we have in our system now: bogging down our economy for the sake of controlling people’s goings… and casting the net SO wide, that innocents are snagged in the process. I’m sure that’s a sacrifice you’re willing to make, since it’s not YOUR rights or at least not rights you care much about; but that’s not a call you’re in a position to make for the other 322 million people in the United States.
Your premises are not founded in objectivity or logic, but rather in an emotional argument based on personal experiences. Using legislation to control, manipulate, or punish people is unbecoming of a civilized society. If you have to use force to get your way rather than reason, perhaps your way isn’t all that great. Good ideas sell themselves.