Archives for April 18, 2010

SB1070: National IDs for Arizonans?

A controversy seems to have come up among conservatives and pro-liberty activists in Arizona regarding Senator Pearce’s anti-illegal immigration bill, SB1070.

I received this nastygram on my windshield at last Thursday’s big teaparty in Tempe.

So, Naturally, I looked into it. 

I found that this amendment had been added to Russell Pearce’s anti-illegal immigration bill, SB1070.

“D.  Nothing in this act shall implement or shall be construed or interpreted to implement or establish the REAL ID act of 2005 (P.L. 109-13, division B; 119 Stat. 302) including the use of a radio frequency identification chip.”

However, I also found that this group, the Arizona Campaign for Liberty, is unconcerned about any REAL ID ramifications and specifically pointed out another  section of the bill: E. E1 and E2, in SB1070, which states:

    E. Except as provided in federal law, officials or agencies of this state and counties, cities, towns and other political subdivisions of this state may not be prohibited or in any way be restricted from sending, receiving or maintaining information relating to the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual or exchanging that information with any other federal, state or local governmental entity for the following official purposes:

    1. Determining eligibility for any public benefit, service or license provided by any federal, state, local or other political subdivision of this state.

    2. Verifying any claim of residence or domicile if determination of residence or domicile is required under the laws of this state or a judicial order issued pursuant to a civil or criminal proceeding in this state.

 Campaign for Liberty asserts that this language

…allows any state agency or political subdivision to hand over to the US Department of Homeland Security any data on any person for any license.

The Campaign for Liberty states it is not against the anti-illegal immigration measures in the bill, just this part of the bill.   The Campaign for Liberty also states that:

…this means that DPS can hand over your CCW data, the Motor Vehicle Division can hand over your drivers license data and Game and Fish can hand over your hunting license data to the US Department of Homeland Security or any federal department or agency.

Does this part of the bill create a national id?  Analysis:

It appears that the Campaign for Liberty is correct, based on the reading of the language of the bill.  There is nothing that prohibits any state agency from “exchanging” any data from any person (legal or illegal) with the US Department of Homeland Security (or any other federal department or agency) when investigating an applicant for any license (or benefit). 

It’s pretty clear that “any state agency” includes the agencies (or political subdivisions mentioned above).  It’s pretty clear that any person means any person.  It’s also pretty clear that any license includes drivers or hunting licenses.    “Shall not be prohibited” is a stronger version of “is allowed to”.      Does “any license” also include CCW?  I don’t know.

So does this in itself create a national id?  No.  But after the federal government obtains the information from Arizona state agencies, nothing stops the feds  from integrating it with all the other data they have on you and from the federal government creating a national id database out of it.

It should be noted that the “Revolution” flyer does not appear to be from the Campaign for Liberty, but from this other group.

 Personally, I am vehemently opposed to national id efforts of any kind (for any reason) on spiritual grounds.  I also oppose it on historical grounds.  National ids were part of the Clintonista agenda of the early 90s.  Conservatives opposed it at the time on the grounds of internal passports had only ever been used by totalitarian and communist governments.

Ronald Reagan was also against national ids.

I’m really concerned about SB1070.  It is simply not worth risking the liberty and privacy of law abiding Arizonans and handing over their data to the feds.  Why can’t Arizona do what Oklahoma is doing?   Apparently, the very same anti-illegal immigrations efforts are underway in Oklahoma, but the Oklahoma state legislature has figured out a way of doing the same thing without turning over the private data of law abiding Oklahomans to Obama and the US Department of Homeland Security:

The arguments that the Campaign for Liberty make are compelling.  If I were a conservative legislator posed with voting on this bill, I’d make sure that I read it first and asked some tough questions about why the privacy of law abiding Arizonans is being sacrificed to Obama (incl. CCW permit info?!?) when Oklahoma has figured out how to do the same thing without sacrificing law abiding Oklahomans’ data.

Here’s another little interesting tidbit……  It appears that our friends to the north are concerned about the same thing in Nevada.  More interesting, it appears like the vote on entering Nevada into the REAL ID program is occurring on the same day(!) that  the Arizona State Legislature is voting on roughly the equivalent in Arizona.

Also Gun Owners of America states that once the federal government has your drivers license data, they have enough information to track gun purchases!!!

“Since I need a driver’s license to purchase a gun from a dealer, BATFE would finally have its long-coveted tool to impose gun control on targeted groups — particularly under a liberal anti-gun administration. If you believe in the Second Amendment, please vote against this anti-gun monstrosity.”

Gun Owners of America clearly is against providing law abiding citizens data to the federal government.

Based on GOA’s assessment above and the fact that the Arizona MVD can voluntarily hand over your drivers license data to the feds (DPS and CCW data too?), could SB1070 inadvertently lead to gun registration? 

The risk here is too great.  In our rush to pass strict anti-illegal immigration measures, have we not paid attention to the greater concern?  Protecting our state sovereignity and our individual independence from the federal government?

Not to mention the fact that from the federal side of the fence, they plan on using the SAME SYSTEM to enable AMNESTY!   We can’t have it both ways – to use secure ids to keep illegal aliens out and at the same time use secure ids to let them in!

Does the legislature know what it’s doing?  I’m not sure it does.

Is the fringe “revolution” group who produced the flyer right?  If you take out the personal invectives and just focus on the facts, it looks like they are.


Board of Supervisors betrays Republicans by choosing Goddard staffer Rick Romley to be County Attorney

One day after resigning as Terry Goddard’s lobbyist and special adviser, Rick Romley finds himself appointed county attorney by the allegedly Republican Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.  This is a shameful act of betrayal by the Board of Supervisors, which was required by law to appoint a Republican to replace Andrew Thomas, who is running for Attorney General.  A look at Rick Romley’s actions over the last few years reveal that there is little if anything Republican about Romley other than his party registration.

In 2002 Romley endorsed ultraliberal Chris Cummiskey over Jan Brewer in the Secretary of State race.  Chris Cummiskey had a far left-wing record as a state senator, including votes in favor of partial-birth abortion and against a bill requiring people to show proof of citizenship in order to register to vote.  But there was Romley pushing to put that man a heartbeat away from the Governor’s office.  Perhaps Romley found kinship with Cummiskey because Romley is also pro-choice.

Romley had no record of doing anything on illegal immigration during his 16 years in office.  While Rick Romley sat idle Arizona became the illegal immigration capital of the United States.  Andrew Thomas and Sheriff Arpaio showed that by working hard, persevering, and ignoring apologists for illegal immigration, much could be accomplished at the local level in the battle against illegal immigration.  Yet do-nothing Romley denounced these groundbreaking efforts as “McCarthyism.”

One time Romley did get up in arms about illegal immigration.  That was in 2005 when an Army reservist named Patrick Haab bravely detained seven illegal immigrants and a coyote at a rest stop on Interstate 8.  Various liberals demanded that the county attorney put Haab in prison and throw away the key, but as even liberal columnist E.J. Montini noted, the public sided heavily with Haab.  Andrew Thomas brushed off calls for Haab’s head and refused to prosecute, and was attacked for that by Romley.  Mr. Haab could now face prosecution at the hands of Romley.

Romley continued his record of backing liberal democrats with endorsements of Dan Saban over Sheriff Arpaio and Janet Napolitano’s former legal henchman Tim Nelson over Andrew Thomas.  Nelson is now Terry Goddard’s second in command.  And speaking of Goddard, as noted above Rick Romley just resigned as Goddard’s lobbyist, and has previously called Terry Goddard a man of “unquestioned character.”  Whether Romley campaigns for Goddard this fall or not, as some are speculating, clearly Romley will be of no use to whoever is the Republican gubernatorial nominee, and Goddard may even be able to use Romley as a shield to fend off attacks.

There were other lows in Romley’s county attorney reign of error, like the time a federal jury found him guilty of retaliating against a female employee for complaining about sexual harassment, or Romley’s self-congratulatory “report” that he created and mailed out at great expense as he was leaving office.  But you probably get the idea about Romley’s record.  And now he is indicating that he will review (read: gut) Andrew Thomas’ tough on crime and illegal immigration policies.

Perhaps what is most shameful about the Board’s choice of RINO Rick is that they passed on two highly-qualified, pro-life conservatives, Andrew Pacheco and Bill Montgomery.  Bill Montgomery has said he will run against Romley, but it is not clear what Pacheco’s intentions are.

One thing is clear.  In the August primary we must send Romley back to his job as Terry Goddard’s lobbyist and special adviser.  Legislators, other elected officials, candidates for office, right-to-life must all rally around the conservative candidate, and Bill Montgomery may have a clear shot at Romley.  And we must rally quickly, establish momentum, and stifle Romley’s establishment fundraising machine.

Candidates for office should be asked to demonstrate their conservative credentials by endorsing Bill Montgomery and denouncing Romley, and the Board of Supervisors for choosing him.  The Republican party will always have a big tent, but there is no room for those like Romley who possess not a shred of Republicanism, and we have been successful in driving many of these phonies away.  We must continue that trend by sending Romley back to his buddy Terry Goddard.