[Pangloss]

Senators Lindsay Graham (Republican) and Chuck Schumer (Democrat) met with President Obama on Thursday to discuss a plan to overhaul immigration based around three points:

- Tougher border security
- New temporary immigrant workers program
- Biometric Social Security card
- Path to citizenship for current illegal residents

Quote

"We're not going to mass-deport people and put them in jail, nor should we," Graham said. "But we need a system so they don't get an advantage over others for citizenship."

Sound thinking, IMO. What do you think?

http://www.latimes.c...story?track=rss

[jackson33]

Pangloss; This is one of a few issues, I stray off the Conservative reservation. Immigration reform, should have been settled during the Bush Administration, proposed January 2007, which McCain, Graham and most Democrats at the time supported. I feel sure his particulars would follow the Bush plan and for the most part not much different the Reagan's plan in the 1980's, certainly a conservative.

Quote

George W. Bush pursued legislation that would grant hardworking immigrants the privilege of becoming permanent legal United States residents in exchange for undergoing a background check, paying a fine, paying back taxes, learning to speak English and obeying United States laws. It makes sense to make the immigrants go through a background check because we have to make sure we do not accept immigrants who have a dirty record or are wanted for particular offenses such as murder or child molestation. The immigrants should absolutely have to obey our laws because nobody is above the law.

http://ezinearticles...osal&id=2261208

Basically, it follows the SOP, for any person seeking citizenship, once in the US, though by some legal means. What may make a difference, are the time requirement for being in the US to qualify, the process and the acceptance of a National ID card, which I have serious problems with, feeling it's simply not necessary. Then I wonder, just how 10 or more million folks, can be processed (time required) into any system, without drawing in so many additional people seeking the privileges of US Citizenship...I'm not sure the Reagan program has completely been closed, knowing it had not been early this Century.

[jryan]

The national ID card is long past due as far as I am concerned. It was really due in the late 90s as soon as technology was sufficient to create a tamper resistant ID card.

From illegal immigration to voter fraud, the ID card is the only logical starting point for any remedy.

[Sisyphus]

I think it's all common sense except for the national ID card, which is pointless. We already have social security numbers, and every state issues identification cards. Illegal immigrants are not getting jobs by forging documents. They are getting jobs off the books, and their employers know perfectly well they're illegal.

Still, I'm glad a consensus seems to be solidifying that actually makes sense. No plan is going to work without a path to citizenship for current illegals, and those conditions (paying back taxes, etc.) make sense.

That said, actual implementation is much, much easier said than done, and the points are vague. "Tougher border security" could mean practically anything. We've been toughing up border security more and more for decades, and the stream of illegal immigration continues.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Identification is a hard problem. It's all based on birth certificates in the end -- you just bring in your birth certificate and a social security card to prove your ID when getting a license -- and those are ludicrously easy to forge. Making the card itself better won't prevent people from getting one through fraudulent means.

Also, if one is to design a "secure" biometric/cryptographic identity card, it had better be a public process with review by independent security experts. Nearly every "secure" identification system, like RFID tags in passports, has had major weaknesses because someone thought it better to keep the details secret.

[jryan]

Cap said:

Identification is a hard problem. It's all based on birth certificates in the end -- you just bring in your birth certificate and a social security card to prove your ID when getting a license -- and those are ludicrously easy to forge. Making the card itself better won't prevent people from getting one through fraudulent means.

Also, if one is to design a "secure" biometric/cryptographic identity card, it had better be a public process with review by independent security experts. Nearly every "secure" identification system, like RFID tags in passports, has had major weaknesses because someone thought it better to keep the details secret.

Well, the certificate itself is easy to forge, but the paper trail of that document isn't easy to forge.

The only birth certificates you find being heavily forged (or at least when I was a social worker) were birth record from OTHER countries. Normally this was done in an attempt to make dependent children younger so as to extend their eligibility for benefits (cut-off usually being 18 years old). This was a common problem with Somalian refugees as we had to accept the Somalian Embassy claim of age, which would change at least once for ever child upon reaching their 18th birthday.'

But the birth records are hard to forge without having someone in the state records bureau willing to implant false records into the state files to validate the birth certificate being provided.

[ecoli]

I see immigration as a free trade issue. I think boarders should be effectively open. Meaning, immigration restrictions dropped, though continue to/perhaps increase monitoring for national security reasons.

I suppose this plan is a step in the right direction.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

jryan said:

But the birth records are hard to forge without having someone in the state records bureau willing to implant false records into the state files to validate the birth certificate being provided.

Are birth certificates always validated against state records, or are there cases where they're just trusted?

[ecoli]

Cap said:

Are birth certificates always validated against state records, or are there cases where they're just trusted?

When I applied for my driver's license, it didn't appear that they were validated against anything, but I could be mistaken. My high school ID certainly wasn't.

[Pangloss]

Cap said:

Are birth certificates always validated against state records, or are there cases where they're just trusted?

Normally they're just assumed to be accurate, but it seems to come up from time to time when questions arise that challenge their authenticity. My father was born in the Philippines to an American family. He has a birth certificate, but the original record of authority was lost when the Japanese invaded that country in WW2. So when he happened over the course of 60+ years of living to lose his own copy, and wanted to travel outside of the country, this became a bit of a paperwork nightmare (eventually resolved, though I'm not sure how -- some sort of affidavit from family members, perhaps?). I'm sure this is a fairly common problem -- hospitals burn down all the time; local governments lose records (especially small towns/counties with limited budgets).

And there was of course the one-cycle story over Barrack Obama's birth certificate back during the election (which is still a common meme with the far right, alas).

For these reasons a national storage of the authoritative record does make practical sense. Of course, that creates a single point of failure! But you can put some money into it and make sure that it has adequate backup, etc, and that takes most of the uncertainty out of the problem.

[jryan]

Cap said:

Are birth certificates always validated against state records, or are there cases where they're just trusted?

Depends on the circumstance. They are not always trusted, no, and many states have a database available to other states to verify certificates electronically (and had them as early as 1995 as I used one in my work). But even before that we were required to get verification of birth from the state when a higher form of ID (that also verified birth certificates) was provided.

I can only assume that a national ID card, since it would amount to the top tier form of ID, would have an in depth birth verification requirement, as such verification cascades to all other forms of ID.

If it didn't then I would have a problem with it. I know a bit about such "chain of authority" ID systems between fed and state governments, and an unverified ID distributed by the Federal Government would royally screw that agreement.

But I have seen nothing that indicates that these national ID cards would not be subject to such stringent verification processes so I see no need to accuse them of such at this point.

[npts2020]

Cap said:

Are birth certificates always validated against state records, or are there cases where they're just trusted?

Sometimes state records aren't even that good. The hospital I was born in burned to the ground about a decade later and there is no "official" record of the people born in that hospital. What is funny is that I have the original birth certificate (the one with the baby foot prints) but it is not considered to be a valid form of id.

[Sisyphus]

npts2020 said:

Sometimes state records aren't even that good. The hospital I was born in burned to the ground about a decade later and there is no "official" record of the people born in that hospital. What is funny is that I have the original birth certificate (the one with the baby foot prints) but it is not considered to be a valid form of id.

Yeah right. You were clearly born in Ethiopia.