Can Homeland Security not understand plain English?

Today's editorial takes note of the strange -- and worrisome -- disconnect between Gov. Mark Sanford and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff over the federal Real ID mandate:

"What is up with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the agency congressionally charged with converting driver's licenses into de facto national identity cards and foisting the cost onto the states? On Monday, the Homeland Security deadline for states to indicate willingness to knuckle under to the so-called Real ID mandate, Gov. Mark Sanford offered the agency a lengthy explanation why South Carolina could not - and would not - comply.

"Yet six hours after receiving Sanford's letter, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff responded as though Sanford had caved in to the federal will. The agency, he said, would regard Sanford's letter as intent to comply with its Real ID regime by the May 11, 2011, deadline.

"For now, therefore, the feds will continue to regard S.C. driver's licenses as bona fide government-issued identity cards for federal purposes. S.C. residents will not be subject to extra security measures if they fly or conduct business in a federal building after this coming May 11.

"This Homeland Security reprieve is welcome, to be sure, but the disconnect between Sanford's letter and Chertoff's response is worrisome. Sanford's letter explains how the S.C. Department of Motor Vehicles - without federal goading - has already made driver's licenses secure from terrorist subversion and lays out the steps the DMV intends to take to make licenses even more secure.

"But Sanford also informed the secretary that the 2007 state law rejecting Real ID compliance is still on the books. Thus, South Carolina will not put the Homeland Security logo on its driver's licenses or complete the Real ID requirements by May 11, 2011. Nor will the state accept any future Homeland Security attempt to downgrade its driver's licenses for federal security purposes.

"The governor also told Chertoff that the Real ID law is an indignity to state's rights and personal privacy. The feds, he said, should back away from such intrusions and recognize the validity and effectiveness of South Carolina's alternative path toward driver's license security.

"Can Chertoff not read? How on earth could he find in Sanford's text the slightest hint that South Carolina will ever comply with Real ID? It's just not there."

We can only guess at the answer: As the agent for a Congress that refuses to respond to states' demands that the Real ID law be weakened or repealed, Chertoff is trying to finesse the matter. The agency's only other option is to punish the residents of states whose political leaders openly defy the mandate.

"If the agency, beginning this May 11, downgraded the security value of driver's licenses from South Carolina, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, California, Delaware and other rebellious states, their residents would be treated as possible terrorism suspects every time they conduct federal business. The resultant citizen outrage would soon escalate into a national revolt.

"So Chertoff pretends South Carolina has fallen into line even though it hasn't. Why not? He'll be leaving office with the Bush administration in nine months, after which someone else will be responsible for bludgeoning the states into Real ID compliance by May 2011. Sanford, meanwhile, remains in office until January 2011, during which time our state will likely remain proudly noncompliant.

"Are we the only ones worried that Monday's bizarre letters exchange didn't prevent a Real ID train wreck, but only deferred it for three years?"

Comments

[jim sefter]

Thanks for putting into words the puzzling response of Homeland Security to Sanford's letter. Didn't and still doesn't make any sense. But at least Nick can still fly to Boston without too much hassle!

[Nick]

I was flying there before May anyway, so it's all good anyway. And I plan on getting my passport renewed, as soon as I get a picture taken. But thanks anyway. :)

It is strange to accept a letter of rejection as a letter granting an extension. I can only think that they don't want to really alienate states. Bush would love to force states to do things, but to do so, the Supreme Court would more then likely be on his butt.
This is an election year. Chertoff will more than likely be out of a job, since even if it's McCain, he'll probably put his own guy in there. And by the time this gets to completetion, the bill on DHS' side can get watered down. The states can buckle and change their law. Laws can change, and perhaps Chertoff sees that.

[beachguy(original)]

Chertoff won't have to worry about it. He just gave SC until 2010..so he doesn't have to deal with it on his watch...simple as that. federal "agencies" are just like your local "RTA" they can make up any rules they want to and enforce them any way they want, nearly impervious to elected officials or voters.

[DanielC]

Exactly BGO,

The whole reason I stand here screaming about SMALLER government. Get our government back into the local offices where we can drive to Columbia, Conway, Marion, Florence, Charleston, etc. and let our local voices get heard on issues.

We should not have to put up with the bloatware government that was started in 1913 and expanded, bloated, engorged to the chocking point of stagnation we now have in Washington.