Jeep Wrangler Forum - Reply to Topic
Jeep Wrangler Forum

Go Back   Jeep Wrangler Forum > General Discussion Forums > Off-Topic > Passport to enter national parks?

Join Wrangler Forum Today


Thread: Passport to enter national parks? Reply to Thread
Title:
  
Message:
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Jeep Wrangler Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
08-19-2007 03:36 PM
debruins I dont understadn how its gonna help the border patrol either, thats the whole reason, yet the border patrol isnt in the state parks, or in the entrances into airports(you already have to be in the us), and if you already have a pass port...???

i dont get there reasoning, like the Real ID is gonna keep the terrorists out of the national parks WHOO HOO?????
08-19-2007 12:05 PM
Odhinn They are triing to force their policies through intimidation. I for one don't think we need another ID. The government already has us ID'ed with a SSN, a Birth Certificate, A driver license, and a Tax number, not to mention anything else they have databased. Whats next after the real ID ACT. Forced microchipping. We are slowly become ID'ed cattle to the gov to do as they please with us.

To forbid a states residence from traveling and enjoying something they already pay for through taxes is unforgivable in my book and should never happen. Especially if it is done to force a play by the feds.

Do some research and look into how many international ports are actually run by or owned by foreign companies and/or powers. It will shock you.
08-19-2007 11:56 AM
OdhinnsChick I read somewhere that foreign countries actually own our national parks. :/
08-19-2007 11:55 AM
iamagolfspaz I always thought that our tax money helps to support the parks. Why do i have to pay twice just to go enjoy something that i already payed for!
08-19-2007 11:54 AM
Levinoss I guess I dont see whats bad about the program? Besides them making it hard for the people who dont want in the program. What is peoples complaint about the program?

~Lev
08-19-2007 11:39 AM
OdhinnsChick Heh, it's their version of checks and balances I guess. =P
08-19-2007 10:21 AM
Odhinn I can't believe our government would do this

Fact is our government has been doing things like this for years under the radar. The average American Citizen doesn't care if it doesn't affect them personally. I am tired of hearing the phrase "If you are doing nothing wrong then you have nothing to worry about" True, but it is the principle of the matter, and what happens when it get beyond a point of no-return and affects everyone.

Amazing how the States are suppose to hold the power in our Government but when the feds don't get what they want they resort to these tactics.

Sounds like when the feds forced Montana to adopt the 55 speed limit by witholding their highway funds until they did so.
08-18-2007 02:05 PM
amy Some things that bother me...

Quote:
"More than half the nation's state legislatures have passed symbolic legislation denouncing the plan, and some have penned bills expressly forbidding compliance."
If more than half the country has already said "We don't want it!", where do the feds get off saying we have to have it? The federal government is supposed to be subservient to the states.

Quote:
"This is not a mandate," Chertoff said. "A state doesn't have to do this, but..."
Quote:
The cards would be mandatory for all "federal purposes," which include boarding an airplane or walking into a federal building, nuclear facility or national park, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told the National Conference of State Legislatures last week. Citizens in states that don't comply with the new rules will have to use passports for federal purposes.
Basically, they will be holding the non-compliant states, more than half the states, hostage, until they submit to Big Brother. It makes me sick!
OC, just because we're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get us.
08-18-2007 12:44 AM
OdhinnsChick Just call me paranoid then.
08-17-2007 03:52 PM
chucky cheese land use permits or any type of fee to enter controlled areas for the upkeep of that area is fine as long as you dont have to give identification or prove who you are.
08-17-2007 03:43 PM
AzTJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeeter View Post
- I know its true but it doesn't bother me.
08-17-2007 03:41 PM
skeeter
Quote:
Originally Posted by OdhinnsChick View Post
It's already pretty disgusting that everywhere you go they want your damn SS number. Before long, we will have to use eye and fingerprint scanners to do anything. It's ridiculous.

I was watching a show a while back about England's "security" system. Everyone's face is in a database and there are camera's on every corner that monitor people. If you are wanted by the police for something that camera can pick you out of a crown of 100 people. Seems rather scary that it could be used for other things one day.
And yet their crime rate is rising and the citizens are immigrating out in droves.
Everybody loves em a good police state eh
08-17-2007 03:36 PM
chucky cheese old, wear clean underwear you never know what may happen. new, dont pick your nose or adjust yourself you dont know who's watching!
08-17-2007 03:36 PM
skeeter
Quote:
Originally Posted by AzTJ View Post
I like the idea of the face recognition though, a public security system. If you've got nothing to be afraid of or hide, there shouldn't be a problem with. And its not like the cameras are in your house, they are out in the public.


Quote:
THe only reason we have to buy passes out here is because of the people claiming that ATV and off-road vehicles are damaging the environment. And to lessen the amount of people in the forrest and the chances of human started forest fires.
We have land use passes here too, the money is used to maintain trail heads, camp grounds, fire roads, wetlands etc.
I have no problem with use permits as long as there is no provision for denying their purchase.
08-17-2007 02:56 PM
AzTJ I like the idea of the face recognition though, a public security system. If you've got nothing to be afraid of or hide, there shouldn't be a problem with. And its not like the cameras are in your house, they are out in the public.

THe only reason we have to buy passes out here is because of the people claiming that ATV and off-road vehicles are damaging the environment. And to lessen the amount of people in the forrest and the chances of human started forest fires.
08-17-2007 02:35 PM
OdhinnsChick It's already pretty disgusting that everywhere you go they want your damn SS number. Before long, we will have to use eye and fingerprint scanners to do anything. It's ridiculous.

I was watching a show a while back about England's "security" system. Everyone's face is in a database and there are camera's on every corner that monitor people. If you are wanted by the police for something that camera can pick you out of a crown of 100 people. Seems rather scary that it could be used for other things one day.
08-17-2007 02:04 PM
AzTJ Out here in Arizona we have to buy Tonto Passes to enter the national forest. Almost like a parking permit
08-17-2007 01:56 PM
chucky cheese and create rebels and revolutionaries
08-17-2007 01:49 PM
cavediverjc Big Brother sees all.........and wants to control all......
08-17-2007 01:02 PM
skeeter
Passport to enter national parks?

This crap is getting ridiculous.

Quote:
Federal ID plan raises privacy concerns

By Eliott C. McLaughlin

(CNN) -- Americans may need passports to board domestic flights or to picnic in a national park next year if they live in one of the states defying the federal Real ID Act.

The act, signed in 2005 as part of an emergency military spending and tsunami relief bill, aims to weave driver's licenses and state ID cards into a sort of national identification system by May 2008. The law sets baseline criteria for how driver's licenses will be issued and what information they must contain.

The Department of Homeland Security insists Real ID is an essential weapon in the war on terror, but privacy and civil liberties watchdogs are calling the initiative an overly intrusive measure that smacks of Big Brother.

More than half the nation's state legislatures have passed symbolic legislation denouncing the plan, and some have penned bills expressly forbidding compliance.

Several states have begun making arrangements for the new requirements -- four have passed legislation applauding the measure -- but even they may have trouble meeting the act's deadline.

The cards would be mandatory for all "federal purposes," which include boarding an airplane or walking into a federal building, nuclear facility or national park, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told the National Conference of State Legislatures last week. Citizens in states that don't comply with the new rules will have to use passports for federal purposes.

"For terrorists, travel documents are like weapons," Chertoff said. "We do have a right and an obligation to see that those licenses reflect the identity of the person who's presenting it."

Chertoff said the Real ID program is essential to national security because there are presently 8,000 types of identification accepted to enter the United States.

"It is simply unreasonable to expect our border inspectors to be able to detect forgeries on documents that range from baptismal certificates from small towns in Texas to cards that purport to reflect citizenship privileges in a province somewhere in Canada," he said.

Chertoff attended the conference in Boston, Massachusetts, in part to allay states' concerns, but he had few concrete answers on funding.

The Department of Homeland Security, which estimates state and federal costs could reach $23.1 billion over 10 years, is looking for ways to lessen the burden on states, he said. On the recent congressional front, however, Chertoff could point only to an amendment killed in the Senate last month that would've provided $300 million for the program.

"There's going to be an irreducible expense that falls on you, and that's part of the shared responsibility," Chertoff told the state legislators.

Bill Walsh, senior legal fellow for the Heritage Foundation, a Washington-based conservative think tank that supports the Real ID Act, said states shouldn't be pushing for more federal dollars because, ultimately, that will mean more federal oversight -- and many complaints about cost coincide with complaints about the federal government overstepping its bounds.

"They are only being asked to do what they should've already done to protect their citizens," Walsh said, blaming arcane software and policies at state motor vehicle departments for what he called "a tremendous trafficking in state driver's licenses."

The NCSL is calling Real ID an "unfunded mandate" that could cost states up to $14 billion over the next decade, but for which only $40 million has been federally approved. The group is demanding Congress pony up $1 billion for startup costs by year's end or scrap the proposal altogether.

Everyone must visit DMV by 2013

The Real ID Act repealed a provision in the 9/11 Commission Implementation Act calling for state and federal officials to examine security standards for driver's licenses.

It called instead for states to begin issuing new federal licenses, lasting no longer than eight years, by May 11, 2008, unless they are granted an extension.

It also requires all 245 million license and state ID holders to visit their local departments of motor vehicles and apply for a Real ID by 2013. Applicants must bring a photo ID, birth certificate, proof of Social Security number and proof of residence, and states must maintain and protect massive databases housing the information.

NCSL spokesman Bill Wyatt said the requirements are "almost physically impossible." States will have to build new facilities, secure those facilities and shell out for additional equipment and personnel.

Those costs are going to fall back on the American taxpayer, he said. It might be in the form of a new transportation, motor vehicle or gasoline tax. Or you might find it tacked on to your next state tax bill. In Texas, Wyatt said, one official told him that without federal funding, the Longhorn State might have to charge its citizens more than $100 for a license.

"We kind of feel like the way they went about this is backwards," Wyatt said, explaining that states would have appreciated more input into the process. "Each state has its own unique challenges and these are best addressed at state levels. A one-size-fits-all approach to driver's licenses doesn't necessarily work."

Many states have revolted. The governors of Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Washington have signed bills refusing to comply with the act. Six others have passed bills and/or resolutions expressing opposition, and 15 have similar legislation pending.

Though the NCSL says most states' opposition stems from the lack of funding, some states cited other reasons for resisting the initiative.

New Hampshire passed a House bill opposing the program and calling Real ID "contrary and repugnant" to the state and federal constitutions. A Colorado House resolution dismissed Real ID by expressing support for the war on terror but "not at the expense of essential civil rights and liberties of citizens of this country."

Privacy concerns raised

Colorado and New Hampshire lawmakers are not alone. Groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and Electronic Frontier Foundation say the IDs and supporting databases -- which Chertoff said would eventually be federally interconnected -- will infringe on privacy.

EFF says on its Web site that the information in the databases will lay the groundwork for "a wide range of surveillance activities" by government and businesses that "will be able to easily read your private information" because of the bar code required on each card.

The databases will provide a one-stop shop for identity thieves, adds the ACLU on its Web site, and the U.S. "surveillance society" and private sector will have access to the system "for the routine tracking, monitoring and regulation of individuals' movements and activities."

The civil liberties watchdog dubs the IDs "internal passports" and claims it wouldn't be long before office buildings, gas stations, toll booths, subways and buses begin accessing the system.

But Chertoff told legislators last week that DHS has no intention of creating a federal database, and Walsh, of the Heritage Foundation, said the ACLU's allegations are disingenuous.

States will be permitted to share data only when validating someone's identity, Walsh said.

"The federal government wouldn't have any greater access to driver's license information than it does today," Walsh said.

States have the right to refuse to comply with the program, he said, and they also have the right to continue issuing IDs and driver's licenses that don't meet Real ID requirements.

But, Walsh said, "any state that's refusing to implement this key recommendation by the 9/11 Commission, and whose state driver's licenses are as a result used in another terrorist attack, should be held responsible."

State reaction to Real ID has not been all negative. Four states have passed bills or resolutions expressing approval for the program, and 13 states have similar legislation pending (Several states have pending pieces of legislation both applauding and opposing Real ID).
advertisement

Chertoff said there would be repercussions for states choosing not to comply.

"This is not a mandate," Chertoff said. "A state doesn't have to do this, but if the state doesn't have -- at the end of the day, at the end of the deadline -- Real ID-compliant licenses then the state cannot expect that those licenses will be accepted for federal purposes."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/....id/index.html

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:21 AM.



Jeep®, Wrangler, Liberty, Wagoneer, Cherokee, and Grand Cherokee are copyrighted and trademarked to Chrysler Motors LLC.
Wranglerforum.com is not in any way associated with the Chrysler Motors LLC