|
The federal government mandated the Real ID Act in 2005, but only now are the states being asked to implement in. The program was a plan to combat terrorism, attached to a war spending bill. There was very little discussion at the time, and Real ID continues to fly below the radar. Of the 7 people we interviewed for this story, NOT ONE had even heard of the multi-billion dollar unfunded federal mandate.
Few people would argue against the surface-level intentions of Real ID: crack down on terrorism, reduce illegal immigration, and make it tougher for people who shouldn't have ID's, to get them.
But a numbers of problems arise... What are the real intentions of the "Real ID" program? Is it one step closer to the federal government tracking our every move? Inital prototypes of "Real ID" including microchips imbedded in the card. So do the newest passports. Another problem is how the act was passed. In my opinion it's just plain wrong for the federal government to pass a 4 billion dollar government mandate without letting the public know. Finally, by mandating this program, the federal government is forcing the states to not only comply, but pay. It seems to me, like it's blatant abuse of the entire idea of a democracy.
How do you feel about Real ID? Are the benefits worth the sacrifices we must make? With a multi billion dollar budget shortfall in Nevada alone, can states afford to pay tens of millions of dollars to enforce this act? Will "Real ID" lead to a national ID, worse yet, a national database? Is the federal government trying to take away state rights? Will "Real ID" help?
Let me know how you feel...
|