"Consular cards were not designed to be identification and no treaty recognizes them as such. Legal travelers, visitors and long-term residents carried passports, visas or green cards for that purpose"
About this Quote
Gallegly is doing something quietly surgical here: narrowing the definition of legitimacy until only the documents the federal government controls can count. The line reads like a dry procedural reminder, but the real work is cultural and political boundary-setting. By insisting consular cards "were not designed" to be ID and that "no treaty recognizes them", he isn’t just disputing a credential; he’s preemptively disqualifying a whole set of people from everyday participation in American life.
The appeal to treaties is strategic. Most listeners don’t know what treaties say about municipal ID practices, so the reference functions as borrowed authority: international law as a rhetorical gavel. It’s also a way to sidestep local realities. In many U.S. cities, consular IDs became a pragmatic tool for opening bank accounts, reporting crimes, or proving identity to police without escalating a traffic stop into an immigration crisis. Gallegly reframes that messy, human-scale function as a category error, as if the problem is simply that someone used the wrong kind of paper.
His second sentence draws a bright moral line: "Legal travelers" do X; others, by implication, do not. That phrasing turns documents into character. Passports, visas, green cards become not just proof of status but proof of deservingness. The context is the long post-9/11 tightening of identity regimes and the mid-2000s fights over immigration enforcement, when the politics of security and the politics of belonging fused. Gallegly’s intent is to block a back door to recognition - not only by the state, but by the institutions (banks, employers, police) that make a life feel officially possible.
The appeal to treaties is strategic. Most listeners don’t know what treaties say about municipal ID practices, so the reference functions as borrowed authority: international law as a rhetorical gavel. It’s also a way to sidestep local realities. In many U.S. cities, consular IDs became a pragmatic tool for opening bank accounts, reporting crimes, or proving identity to police without escalating a traffic stop into an immigration crisis. Gallegly reframes that messy, human-scale function as a category error, as if the problem is simply that someone used the wrong kind of paper.
His second sentence draws a bright moral line: "Legal travelers" do X; others, by implication, do not. That phrasing turns documents into character. Passports, visas, green cards become not just proof of status but proof of deservingness. The context is the long post-9/11 tightening of identity regimes and the mid-2000s fights over immigration enforcement, when the politics of security and the politics of belonging fused. Gallegly’s intent is to block a back door to recognition - not only by the state, but by the institutions (banks, employers, police) that make a life feel officially possible.
Quote Details
| Topic | Travel |
|---|---|
| Source | Help us find the source |
More Quotes by Elton
Add to List
