Well, this is quality. From (get this!) the World Socialist Web Site, Obama seizes on Arizona law to push repressive immigration overhaul, dated April 28, 2010:
The anti-immigrant law passed in Arizona last week has caused widespread shock and anger, and a wave of protests in Arizona and across the US.
Senate Bill 1070, passed by Arizona's legislature and signed into law by Republican Governor Jan Brewer on April 23, requires that police stop any person under the mere "reasonable suspicion" that they may be undocumented immigrants. Anyone found without proper photo identification — a driver's license, passport, or Green Card—may be arrested, imprisoned, and deported. The law makes it a crime for any person, group, or community to shelter undocumented workers, and requires local governments to enforce its measures or face lawsuits.
The law's mandate that police act on the suspicion that an individual may be an illegal immigrant will inevitably lead to the racial targeting of Mexicans, Mexican-Americans, and other Hispanic populations. There is nothing in the legislation, moreover, to prevent police from applying its broad powers for warrantless apprehensions to wider layers of the population.
The bitter opposition of millions against the Arizona law is not shared by the Obama administration, the Democratic Party, and American liberalism. Far from condemning the bill for its authoritarian and racist elements, Obama has muted his criticism, calling it "misguided," comments echoed by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano—who was elevated to her position based on her own anti-immigrant credentials.
The criticism of the Arizona bill as misguided, "ill-conceived," or "unhelpful" has been echoed by much of the news media. A vaguely-defined movement to boycott Arizona has been launched by Obama's liberal backers, with the city of San Francisco and political opportunist Al Sharpton leading the way.
In fact, the White House and the media have seized on the extreme right-wing Arizona law to promote their own reactionary and anti-democratic immigration agenda—legislation proposed by Democratic Senator Charles Schumer, of New York, and Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, of South Carolina.
Schumer and Graham spelled out the contours of their initiative in a March 17 column for the Washington Post. The bill's central component would be the creation, in all but name, of an internal passport system.
We call Obama a socialist, but the Obamanistas are so bad, even the socialists (the real ones) don't want anything to do with this guy. (ROFL!)
Of course, as we establish our police state, some planning has to go into this, and we are, of course, lied to about the ramifications. Here is the key information from the proposal by Senators Schumer and Graham:
Our immigration system is badly broken. Although our borders have become far more secure in recent years, too many people seeking illegal entry get through. We have no way to track whether the millions who enter the United States on valid visas each year leave when they are supposed to. And employers are burdened by a complicated system for verifying workers' immigration status.
Last week we met with President Obama to discuss our draft framework for action on immigration. We expressed our belief that America's security and economic well-being depend on enacting sensible immigration policies.
We would require all U.S. citizens and legal immigrants who want jobs to obtain a high-tech, fraud-proof Social Security card. Each card's unique biometric identifier would be stored only on the card; no government database would house everyone's information. The cards would not contain any private information, medical information or tracking devices. The card would be a high-tech version of the Social Security card that citizens already have.
An internal passport system, just like the Soviet Union used to have. If you get a good one with a
Of course, Senators Schumer and Graham insist that there would be no government biometric ID database, but there is no way that could be true. From Schumer and Graham on Immigration Reform: Why Not Do it Without the Biometric National ID? dated March 19, 2010:
But the promise not to create a national identity database is almost certainly false.
Let's review how an identity card is issued at a motor vehicle office today: People take the required documents to a DMV and hand them over. If the DMV accepts their documentation, the DMV creates a file about the person containing at least the material that will be printed on the card—including the person’s photograph. Then the DMV gives the person a card.
What would happen if DMVs didn't keep this file? A couple of things—things that make the senators’ claim not to be creating a national identity database highly doubtful.
If there were no file and a card were lost or stolen, for example, the person would have to return to the card issuer again—with all the documents—and run through the entire process again. Because they have databases, DMVs today can produce a new ID and mail it to the address of record based on a phone call or Internet visit. (They each have their own databases — much better than a single database or databases networked together.)
If no file exists, multiple people could use the very same documents to create ID card after ID card after ID card in the same name but with different biometrics. Workers in the card issuing office could accept bribes with near impunity because there would be no documents proving that they had issued cards wrongly. Criminal use of the system would swamp it.
So that they can provide customer service, and for security reasons, state DMVs keep information about license holders, including a biometric of a sort — a photograph. Senators Schumer and Graham may think that they are designing a database-free biometric identity system — such a thing can exist — but the realities they confront will drive it to become a full-scale biometric national identity database.
Yes, indeed, change we can believe in... from the Grand Inquisitor of the United State.
Stick around for Part 3 - there's no telling where this is going - unless, of course, you are familiar with the excesses of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union....