by Lady Liberty
03/11/2003

In Washington these days, the fear of terrorist attacks has combined with the traditional politicians' love for power to supercede and usurp our liberties from every direction. A virtual alphabet soup of laws and proposed programs assails the Constitution on a regular basis. TIA, the USA PATRIOT Act, the Bush administration's proposed TTIC (TIA by another name), the so-called PATRIOT II, and many more have virtually suspended the Bill of Rights under an appallingly wide variety of circumstances. All of this, we are told, is being done "for your safety" and in the name of the "War on Terrorism".

Law-abiding Americans must submit to random searches of their vehicles, their luggage, and often their persons - and soon even background checks - simply for the convenience of air travel. The Constitutional checks- and-balances on law enforcement are weakened at best. The widespread paranoia and the acceptance of the probability of surveillance has caused other agencies to jump on the bandwagon, urging citizens to join in by spying on their neighbors, looking for things completely unrelated to terrorism.

In the face of such draconian measures, it would seem obvious that the most likely venue for terrorists to come in and out of the country would be the most closely monitored and assiduously enforced: our borders. In fact, not only are these borders leaking like sieves, a new phenomenon to make illegal aliens look like legal US residents is gaining widespread acceptance not only among the illegal population but in US government officialdom as well. This phenomenon is known as the Mexican ID card, or Matricula Consular.

The Mexican ID card isn't new. Simply put, it's an identification card issued by the Mexican government to anyone who can show a Mexican birth certificate, a picture ID (any ID will do), a current US address, and a $29 fee. In other words, pretty much anyone can get one. But those legally in the US already have valid forms of ID such as a passports or green cards. The only people who have any need for the cards are illegal Mexican aliens, and plenty of them have begun taking advantage of the service offered by Mexican Consulates across the US.

Why has the card gained sudden popularity? In large part, it's because some local governments have begun accepting the MC as valid ID. Is this a threat to homeland security? Insight Magazine wondered the same thing in an article published online. In the article, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) praised the ID card and said those with the ID now have access to the Philip Burton Federal Building and US Courthouse in San Francisco. With that access, someone who's had no background check of any kind and who has merely had to supply a Mexican birth certificate (not hard to falsely obtain or to forge) also has access to the local FBI offices and other targets that might prove attractive to terrorists.

The MC cards are also a valid form of ID for those stopped by law enforcement authorities, are considered by some banks to be a valid form of ID for opening bank accounts and getting other bank services, and cardholders can use the MC to apply for social service. Ironically, no major bank in Mexico accepts the MC card as a form of ID, and only about a third of Mexico's states will take the card. But its recognition continues to gain wider acceptance in the US, and The Washington Times published a story ("More Countries Issue ID Cards to Illegal Aliens in U.S.", posted January 29, 2003 and available from the Times archives) that asserts the success of the MC cards has prompted other countries to follow suit. Guatamala, Honduras, Poland, Peru, and El Salvador either already issue comparable cards, or are thinking about it. And, like Mexico, the cards are issued to those in the US illegally, no questions asked.

Immigrant-control groups are critical of the trend. In a report published by The Sacramento Bee, the Center for Immigration Studies points out that anything making it easier for immigrants makes it more difficult for immigration laws to be enforced. Although the MC card has been used for more than 100 years, the card's popularity first exploded in the wake of 9/11 when photo IDs were more in demand. Ironically, it seems the demand generated by the need to look out for terrorists has fueled instead a trend that will make it easier for terrorists and other illegal immigrants to live in the US and enjoy access to various privileges and facilities without going through the appropriate legal immigration channels.

In one attempt to address concerns about the MC card, the GSA suspended recognition of the cards until it, the State Department, and other agencies could investigate the matter more fully. The Washington Times said that the GSA had accepted the cards on a trial basis, but that the trial has been stopped "pending further study". One issue likely to be given a closer examination is the ease with which the supporting documentation for the cards, and the cards themselves, can be falsified. Another, of course, is the fact that the cards are issued to anyone with the appropriate materials, no questions asked. One consular official was quoted as saying the cards have nothing to do with immigration status. That, in a nutshell, is the point.

Because of the MC card's exploding popularity and the growing number of institutions and agencies that will accept the card as a valid ID, a "validity bill" is being posed in the US House of Representatives. H.R. 502, submitted by Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO), was written because, in his words, some kind of curb on the cards is "extremely important for reasons of national security." Tancredo also says that he believes the Mexican government is flooding the country with MC cards for illegal aliens because it's tired of waiting for the US to declare another amnesty program (more about the bill as well as links you can use to support the effort toward its passage is available online from the American Policy Center).

In the end, it is in examining the MC cards and their ready acceptance in many places that tells us a good deal about the many other laws, rules, and regulations intended to curb, or at least delay, terrorism. Innocent citizens are forced to comply with these intrusive and unconstitutional demands by authorities because they are ostensibly trying to protect those same innocents from terrorist attacks. Yet a system that would provide easy access for terrorists to American soil and numerous government facilities is scarcely noted by many and is abetted by many more.

The obvious conclusion to reach is that, no matter the clever acronym, some of the most significant legislation addressing terrorism does little but solidify the power of those in control, and it does so at the expense of the liberty of American citizens. Certainly a terrorist or two may be caught because of some portion or another of these measures, and that will be loudly and very publicly touted so that we can all see how good and effective these laws are. What is being relegated to the shadows is that, by the law of diminishing returns, the laws aren't that effective at catching the bad guys because they're largely intended to control the good guys.

A very few Senators seem to have realized that the USA PATRIOT Act was passed in haste and perhaps in error. These Senators, led by Patrick Leahy (D-VT), have urged a review of the various measures included in the Act and their effect on civil liberties. That's a good thing. But it's not just that the law is bad. It's also that the law is largely ineffective. Though there are plenty of letters left in the alphabet to create new laws, they, too, will be ineffective until holes in the immigration system are shrunken and closed. Right now, the MC cards leave a hole in the law big enough to drive a truck through. And if we're truly trying to prevent terrorism, we'd best hope that truck isn't loaded with explosives.

CORRECTION/ADDENDUM:

Last week, I wrote an essay entitled "Campaign of Lies". It addressed the fact that much of the government's educational campaign against drugs involves exaggeration or outright falsehood. It was my contention that the campaigns are so unsuccessful in some significant part because kids know they're hearing lies. One of several examples I used involved LSD and whether or not it would make you jump out a window, thinking you could fly (it won't). I said that it could, however, cause chromosomal damage and that maybe we should just tell kids the truth since the truth was plenty scary enough.

I did not get that information from a government source or an anti-drug organization. I got it privately from a doctor that I believed I could trust to tell me the truth. As it turns out, either he didn't know any better or he was lying, too. A reader was kind enough to let me know that there is no definitive evidence that LSD causes such damage, and pointed me in the direction of some research on the subject. What I learned was this: The study most often credited with "proving" the point involved massive amounts of LSD literally bathing cells in petri dishes. The same study showed that aspirin and caffeine both caused greater damage than did the LSD.

If you're interested in learning more of the facts for yourself, consider reading The Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs, Chapter 50, How LSD Was Popularized, 1962-1969 and Hallucinogens, Chapter 16 of a University of Arizona publication on the same general topic.

The general thrust of "Campaign of Lies" still stands as I wrote it: tell the truth to kids, and we'll get better results in preventing them from using drugs as children. If I could add a second direction to the essay, I think I'd suggest we told the truth to adults as well. Thanks to the reader who was able to tell me kindly that I was wrong, and who generously pointed to some very helpful factual information available online.

Lady Liberty
March 11, 2003