January 21, 2008 - By the end of this month, anyone entering the United States at border crossings from Mexico, Canada or the Caribbean will need more than a driver's license. They will need to produce a passport or certified copy of their birth certificate. According to Chertoff, this is to prove citizenship. What he fails to mention is that it won't matter too much for most of those people if they are Americans, Canadians or islanders - meaning they won't have to be an American citizen the get in. They'll still be allowed to cross. So what's the real purpose behind the new rules?

The new rules have been heavily criticized by many, especially in Border States. There are essentially two groups of opposition. The first is made up of those who don't like the "big brother" aspects of the program. In fact, it would appear that many aspects of the new border rules are closely related to the REAL ID Act, which is encountering stiff resistance in many states.

The other group opposing the rules is largely concerned with the economic impact. This group includes a growing chorus of state and local politicians that are concerned about reduced tourism. And that chorus has been especially loud on the Canadian border.

You might think that because of this opposition and the fact that there is talk in Congress about repealing both the REAL ID Act and the new border rules that DHS would slow down on implementation. But slowing down is the last thing that Chertoff is interested in. To get his point across, Chertoff told critics of the plans to "grow up" in an Associated Press interview.

The differences between those in support of both REAL ID and the border rules, and those opposed to them is likely going to come to a head in the next four months. A little over a week ago DHS announced that the states would have to begin implementing REAL ID on May 11 of this year. DHS will grant waivers to states that agree to comply with the law by 2011, but has said that no waivers will be granted to the 17 states that oppose the plan.

In response, Montana governor Brian Schweitzer has sent a letter to the governors of all of those states opposing the law, urging them to stick to their guns. Montana has passed a law that forbids the state from participating in REAL ID.

The outcome of the battle between both sides is unknown. The federal government is saying that any resident of the 17 states opposed to the law who tries to enter a federal building, courthouse or attempts to fly after May 11 will need to produce a passport or be subject to a pat-down search and questioning. This is likely to lead to long security lines at airports and could be a real problem if Georgia, one of the states opposed to the law, holds firm. That's because Atlanta's Hartsfield Airport is the busiest in the country. Long lines and security snafus in Atlanta would be likely to lead to airline scheduling delays nationwide.

In his letter, Schweitzer said that he thought by sticking together the states could force DHS to "blink". But DHS has responded by saying that they have no intention of blinking.

While we agree that the United States has a need to know who is entering the country, we don't believe that the new rules work. This is especially true along the Canadian border where in many places, American and Canadian neighborhoods buttress up against each other, and crossing the border is as simple as walking across the street. Because of this, the new rules are only likely to inconvenience law abiding citizens but have little or no effect on anyone attempting to cross the border for the wrong reasons.

As for REAL ID, ACCESS has always opposed it and will continue to do so for a variety of reasons. One of our primary reasons for opposition is because it would grant the federal government access to driver's license records in every participating state. This is a significant security concern given the federal government's abysmal record in dealing with issues of data security. This concern is heightened by the fact that the program would be overseen by the Department of Homeland Security; an organization which for the past four years has been unwilling to write a meaningful privacy policy or implement strong data security protocols with regard to its Secure Flight program. As a result, Congress has barred the agency from implementing Secure Flight.

We support Governor Schweitzer in his efforts and urge the other governors to hold firm.

by Jim Malmberg

Note: When posting a comment, please sign-in first if you want a response. If you are not registered, click here. Registration is easy and free.

Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register.