I just caught the following article from the Wall Street Journal about a “Worker ID Card” which is basically a way for government to start a new push for a National ID card. This time they are using illegal immigration as their excuse to encroach even more on the rights and privacy of U.S. citizens. Under this “new” plan, all legal U.S. workers (and they mean everyone that has a job, even teenagers), including citizens and immigrants, would be issued an ID card with embedded information, such as FINGERPRINTS, to tie the card to the worker.
This new card would require anyone with a job to be subjected to fingerprinting! And, if they are willing to go that far, who knows what other “embedded information” would be on the card! We are also talking about a card that would (knowing how government operates) spread from work to voting, to travel, to pretty much every aspect of life in the U.S. All in the name of ridding this country of illegal immigration? I don’t buy it. See the article below for more ridiculous arguments for a National ID card.
ID Card for Workers Is at Center of Immigration Plan
By Laura Meckler, Wall Street Journal
Lawmakers working to craft a new comprehensive immigration bill have settled on a way to prevent employers from hiring illegal immigrants: a national biometric identification card all American workers would eventually be required to obtain.
Under the potentially controversial plan still taking shape in the Senate, all legal U.S. workers, including citizens and immigrants, would be issued an ID card with embedded information, such as fingerprints, to tie the card to the worker.
The ID card plan is one of several steps advocates of an immigration overhaul are taking to address concerns that have defeated similar bills in the past.
The uphill effort to pass a bill is being led by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), who plan to meet with President Barack Obama as soon as this week to update him on their work. An administration official said the White House had no position on the biometric card.
“It’s the nub of solving the immigration dilemma politically speaking,” Mr. Schumer said in an interview. The card, he said, would directly answer concerns that after legislation is signed, another wave of illegal immigrants would arrive. “If you say they can’t get a job when they come here, you’ll stop it.”

The biggest objections to the biometric cards may come from privacy advocates, who fear they would become de facto national ID cards that enable the government to track citizens.
“It is fundamentally a massive invasion of people’s privacy,” said Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. “We’re not only talking about fingerprinting every American, treating ordinary Americans like criminals in order to work. We’re also talking about a card that would quickly spread from work to voting to travel to pretty much every aspect of American life that requires identification.”
Mr. Graham says he respects those concerns but disagrees. “We’ve all got Social Security cards,” he said. “They’re just easily tampered with. Make them tamper-proof. That’s all I’m saying.”
U.S. employers now have the option of using an online system called E-Verify to check whether potential employees are in the U.S. legally. Many Republicans have pressed to make the system mandatory. But others, including Mr. Schumer, complain that the existing system is ineffective.
Last year, White House aides said they expected to push immigration legislation in 2010. But with health care and unemployment dominating his attention, the president has given little indication the issue is a priority.
Rather, Mr. Obama has said he wanted to see bipartisan support in Congress first. So far, Mr. Graham is the only Republican to voice interest publicly, and he wants at least one other GOP co-sponsor to launch the effort.
An immigration overhaul has long proven a complicated political task. The Latino community is pressing for action and will be angry if it is put off again. But many Americans oppose any measure that resembles amnesty for people who came here illegally.
Under the legislation envisioned by Messrs. Graham and Schumer, the estimated 10.8 million people living illegally in the U.S. would be offered a path to citizenship, though they would have to register, pay taxes, pay a fine and wait in line. A guest-worker program would let a set number of new foreigners come to the U.S. legally to work.
Most European countries require citizens and foreigners to carry ID cards. The U.K. had been a holdout, but in the early 2000s it considered national cards as a way to stop identify fraud, protect against terrorism and help stop illegal foreign workers. Amid worries about the cost and complaints that the cards infringe on personal privacy, the government said it would make them voluntary for British citizens. They are required for foreign workers and students, and so far about 130,000 cards have been issued.
Mr. Schumer first suggested a biometric-based employer-verification system last summer. Since then, the idea has gained currency and is now a centerpiece of the legislation being developed, aides said.
A person familiar with the legislative planning said the biometric data would likely be either fingerprints or a scan of the veins in the top of the hand. It would be required of all workers, including teenagers, but would be phased in, with current workers needing to obtain the card only when they next changed jobs, the person said.
The card requirement also would be phased in among employers, beginning with industries that typically rely on illegal-immigrant labor.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce doesn’t have a position on the proposal, but it is concerned that employers would find it expensive and complicated to properly check the biometrics.
Mr. Schumer said employers would be able to buy a scanner to check the IDs for as much as $800. Small employers, he said, could take their applicants to a government office to like the Department of Motor Vehicles and have their hands scanned there.
—Alistair MacDonald contributed to this article.
Write to Laura Meckler at [email protected]
GAMC Debate – Kudos to Rep. Matt Dean
Kudos to Representative Matt Dean of Senate District 52 for his work on health care. This article was sent to me by a fellow conservative and I thought I would share it with everyone!
At least two stand tall in GAMC debate
By LORI STURDEVANT, Star Tribune
Last update: March 7, 2010 – 4:39 PM
Constructively, too. On Friday, a deal was struck that has the blessing of the Legislature’s top leaders in both parties. It’s expected to go to the full House and Senate this week.
For that turnaround to be accomplished so soon after a veto and failed override scoured the veneer of bipartisan good feeling off of this session is remarkable.
A lot of health care stalwarts kept hope alive last week for the poor and the providers that serve them, those close to the GAMC issue say. DFL Sen. Linda Berglin gets the lifetime achievement award in this field; her sidekick, Rep. Tom Huntley, can take a bow.
But Murphy, a two-termer from St. Paul, and Dean, an architect from Dellwood serving his third term, deserve special plaudits.
They are friends, and have remained so through nine months of wrestling with the consequences of Pawlenty’s first veto of GAMC last May 14. They know health care personally. Murphy is a former nurse; Dean is married to an obstetrician.
They’ve focused on solving the biggest problem created by that first veto: Unless the state acts this month, treatment of very low-income uninsured people who show up at hospitals and clinics after April 1 will go unpaid. Hospitals, which are obliged to provide them with care, will suffer losses and layoffs. Higher costs for everyone else will result.
Staying focused on fixing those problems hasn’t been easy in the distracting context of an election-year session. A lot of the people Dean and Murphy needed to enlist as GAMC problem-solvers have also wanted to turn the issue to personal political advantage. The more overt their politicking, the less satisfactory the outcome was likely to be.
That’s why last week, Dean and Murphy refused to take reporters’ bait to bash the partisan opposition and quietly urged their colleagues to cool their rhetoric. “There will be plenty of time for that after this gets done,” Murphy said last week.
There’ll be plenty of ammunition, too.
The GAMC bill initially cleared the House floor on Feb. 18 with 38 Republican votes. When it returned for an override attempt on Monday, 37 of them (one was absent) switched sides and voted to uphold the veto.
One of the switchers was GOP gubernatorial candidate Marty Seifert. One of only nine House members who voted against the bill both times was his chief rival for party endorsement, Rep. Tom Emmer. The difference likely won’t be lost on GOP convention delegates.
Sticking with the governor when he vetoes legislation is what session politics demands of GOP legislators. A minority’s capacity to put any stamp on the session depends on it.
But in this case, sound legislative strategy runs counter to prudent campaign positioning. Those 37 Republicans will now stand accused of being “for the poor before they were against them.” They’ll be asked whether they changed their minds on the merits of the bill, or decided to let the governor do their thinking for them.
The deal struck on Friday may not be an adequate shield for GOP legislators whose districts include large hospitals. Those locally popular facilities will wind up with lower reimbursements than they would have had under the vetoed bill that those legislators helped kill. If hospital layoffs result, legislators will be asked to answer for them.
Meanwhile, DFLers remain subject to sharp questions about why they didn’t act years ago to rein in GAMC spending. The vetoed program’s fee-for-service design allowed its costs to balloon as the state’s population of poor, sick, often homeless adults grew.
There’s also a risk of political fallout for the House speaker who tried and failed a second time (the first was last May 17) to override a GAMC veto. That show of futility won’t enhance Margaret Anderson Kelliher’s gubernatorial bid.
“This is about the Minnesotans” who need help obtaining health care, Kelliher told Capitol reporters Friday. “It’s not about the politics.”
For the Murphy-Dean collaboration to pay off, that spirit has to hold just a little longer.
Lori Sturdevant is a Star Tribune editorial writer and columnist. She is at [email protected].
WCRW Meeting: Saturday, March 13th at 9:00am
Join WCRW for our next monthly meeting on Saturday, March 13th!
Washington County Commissioners Bill Pulkrabeck, Gary Kriesel and Dennis Hegberg will be speaking on the role of a county commissioner, the impact that the state has on the county and how all of it impacts the taxpayer.
Jennifer DeJournett will also be speaking on behalf of Voices of Conservative Women (a PAC), along with our local candidates for State House and State Senate.
YOU MUST RSVP to the meeting by Thursday, March 11th by Evite or by e-mailing Vice President Heidi Schumacher at [email protected] or calling her at (651)739-9053. $15 includes a fabulous breakfast. Pay at the door.
** Please be aware that breakfasts will now be served buffet-style. Doors open at 8:30, the meeting will begin promptly at 9:00am.





