Previous Politech message: http://www.politechbot.com/2007/06/28/senate-backs-away/ -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Politech] Senate backs away from Real ID Act (but federal database of 'employables' seems assured) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:43:28 -0400 From: Ethan Ackerman <eackerma@private> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> Great translations of the legislative process, Declan! Citizens concerned about the Real ID and 'government approval before being employable' provisions in the Senate immigration bill may want to follow closely votes on 3 amendments you've helpfully collected and linked to - the Baucus-Tester, Baucus-Grassley-Obama, and Schumer amendments. Votes will likely happen today and tomorrow. But it is worth noting that NONE of these amendments substantially alters a central part of this immigration bill - mandatory employment verification of ALL US employees against a federal database. (Baucus-Grassley-Obama arguably lengthens time and gives more appeals rights for those faced with inevitable errors, but even this amendment still mandates universal employment verification.) Briefly, Baucus-Tester strips Real ID references and prevents funding of real ID to states, throttling but not outright repealing the program. Baucus-Grassley-Obama replaces the Real ID references in the Employment Verification provisions with a more relaxed, state ID-friendly structure that is also arguably softer on privacy and employers. This amendment doesn't adress Real ID funding or other uses of Real ID (airports, courts) at all. The Schumer amendment is of interest to those concerned about 'national ID' issues for a different reason. It expands Social Security card use and requirements, including in Employment verification, and shares the Social Security database with DHS, and will potentially require biometric-enhanced cards. The underlying bill already does this to some extent, but the Schumer amendment has drawn fire for its mandatory nature and additional sharing and biometric requirements. The ACLU's Caroline Frederickson lays out what each of these amendments do in some more detail at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/caroline-fredrickson/immigration-reform-needed_b_52844.html - note that the Whitehouse Office of Strategic Initiatives has even apparently posted a reply comment disputing aspects of the post. EFF's "Action Alert" gives similar information: https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?alertId=303&pg=makeACall -Ethan _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Jun 28 2007 - 18:23:28 PDT