The idea of a national identity card fills many people with dread. All Libertarians and many conservatives become agitated at the mere mention of such a document. Specters of past dictatorships, and even the Nazi holocaust are brought into any discussion of a national ID - if the suggestion even gets beyond "Are you nuts?"
Yet we already have any disadvantages of a national identification card with none of the advantages - and the advantages are many.
Proving your identity is a daily exercise for almost all US citizens. The 99% of Americans who drive must carry a state-issued driver's license featuring a photograph. Difficult, but not impossible to forge, this license is commonly used as proof of identity for air travel, banking, applying for a job and for any number of commercial transactions.
Meanwhile, your social security number identifies you for many purposes, and is routinely required when you apply for a job, for a bank loan or a credit card. Millions of retired people get monthly checks based upon their social security number. While it's an indication of legal residency, your Social Security card is useless as identification. Without any bio-metric information it is easily forged. Indeed, illegal aliens routinely use fake SS numbers, and even cards, when looking for work in the US. Many of these numbers are stolen from American citizens.
Illegal immigration is a huge and growing problem in this country. We all know the story and its consequences for our economy, our culture, our entire future. Illegal immigrants strain our social services and drive down wages. Criminals, increasing numbers of violent drug gang members among them, bring fear to communities across the Southwest. Are terrorists far behind? Regardless of your political persuasion or your empathy for those who are just looking for honest work or a better life, you have to acknowledge that what we're doing now just isn't working.
A huge part of the illegal immigrant problem is identifying who's legal and who isn't. American heritage, especially in the Southwest, includes a large element of Latin influence. American citizens of Hispanic heritage have contributed hugely to our culture and to the advancement of our society, but we cannot deny that the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants are also Latino.
Compounding the problem is the conflict between America's traditional openness and the need for security. That conflict has driven too many Americans to view the problem as racial. Maricopa County (AZ) Sheriff Joe Arpaio proudly bills himself "America's toughest sheriff". He antagonizes local Latinos by setting up checkpoints, manned by up to 200 deputies, in Latino communities, stopping "all lawbreakers". Arpaio claims he's just fighting crime, meanwhile his county has 40,000 un-served arrest warrants. This leads to charges of racial profiling (which Arpaio of course vigorously denies) and to the belief shared by nearly everyone that his interest is in immigration control, not crime fighting.
The US Customs and Border Protection is currently advertising an identity card for Americans who travel abroad. Issued under the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, it looks much like a driver's license, with a photo, but is virtually impossible to forge. If our useless-as-id Social Security cards were replaced with these cards, there would be no doubt when a job applicant presents it as proof of citizenship. The illegal immigration problem might not disappear, but it would make controlling and reducing it far easier.
Libertarians and others would have concerns, but since driver's licenses are already virtually de facto national ID cards, their concerns are moot. It's time we take that next step and avail ourselves of the advantages of a national identification program - the only part of national identification that we don't already have.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 59
When you apply for a mortgage, is presenting your SS number voluntary? Sure, but you don't get the loan if you don't.
What I'm saying is we already have it; we may as well take it to the next step so that it can address illegal immigration, airport security, etc, etc
My State one will cost me close to 20 bucks !!! F--- !!!
Libramoon, during my trip to New York earlier this month, I did not once volunteer to prove my identity: I was required (forced) to: to check in at the airport, to enter security, to get my hotel room, to withdraw money before the trip. Often I think that proving my identity benefits me (for example, my money in a bank).
That the card is practically non-forgeable is a huge plus.
I feel that, in many ways, the card would protect me. I do not understand anyone's objection.
This is coming unless our economy falls completely apart and we stop having electricity and go back to subsistence farming with most of the world's population starving to death.
When that day comes, you will have lost all your freedoms and the government will be permanent and unchanging.
So don't worry about the card. There are much larger issues at stake.
See www.nopom.info.
If you participate in a modern, complex society, somewhere there is a birth certificate for you, there are tax returns, bank accounts. Even if you wish to remain anonymous, you aren't, not totally.
Our constitution was based off of the federal government being small and the states having certain powers. The feds have overstep their rights and is facing issue like Montana...telling them off (as well as 14 other states). Montana is allowing anyone to have a gun with no background check AND silencers to decrease noise from hunting. These things will continue to pop up as long as the feds keep pushing the boundaries of power. Soon, you will see states leave this union if the feds keep it up.
~M
There is nothing in the Constitution about identity documents. So you're also wrong there. You're certainly free to argue against the proposal, but at least use facts.
As for those last 3 sentences, I have no idea what you mean.
I have to give this some more thought, Gary, but you have made a good case. If the card could be made truly un-counterfeitable, then I think it would go a long way toward solving both crime and illegal immigration problems. I haven't figured out yet what Michael is worried about. But I need to study this some more. Thanks for raising a really good and pertinent issue that we all need to think about.
As for the cards being "virtually impossible to forge," call me a cynic, but if one person can make it someone else can fake it. The states are moving toward adding holograms and other security features to driver licenses and id cards just as effectively, if not more so, as the feds would. And there is more than enough bio-metric info on my current driver license. I do not want my finger print, retinal scan or dna recorded on my id.
The bulk of your post focuses on illegal immigration. A national id would not effectively reduce illegal immigration as so many illegal immigrants are currently functioning in our society without any identification. As for employers, the ones who currently only pay lip-service to the I-9 requirements and overlook suspicious SS numbers would simply be forced to join the ranks of the employers who completely ignore the I-9 form in the first place. A national id card might help immigration enforcement if it were accompanied by a law that required everyone to carry their card at all times and to present it to police upon any request and not just under "probable cause." And yes, that is a police state and a loss of civil liberties. No thank you.
Michale A.: "Totally against it. I should be able to GIVE my info when I want... not just walk by a reader and it takes my info. Sorry, this is a horrible idea." I must have read some of the same stuff that you have because I have also heard that this is "on the radar." That is one step too close to Orwell's vision of the future for me.
For those of you who do support this, would you support a truly universal id? One issued by the UN and authorized by all countries to replace any national id? That would provide a great tool in tracking and fighting international crime, including illegal immigration, human trafficking, drug trafficking, international gangs and terrorism. Just wondering.
As for a universal ID, issued by the UN, totally irrelevant question. Straw man argument.
Thomas: Yep, you know who you are. But the bank teller doesn't, the auto dealer doesn't. And if some bozo rips off your ID and tries to open a credit account in your name, then what?
"I do not want my finger print, retinal scan or dna recorded on my id."
Why not, as long as you have nothing to hide ? If this information were on a national ID card it would reduce the ability of criminals to commit crimes far beyond the scope of illegal immigration. I thought about this when I read a book recently called "The Encyclopedia of Serial Killers". Many of the murders these nutcases committed would have been prevented if they had not been so easily able to falsify their identities. Some of them are still on the loose now.
You don't need to see my identification. These aren't the droids you're looking for.
Also... RFID has been discussed to be included in them. RFID readers can be anywhere and all you have to do is walk by one and it pulls your information.
This is way overstepping the bounds that our constitution placed on the feds. The Privacy Act is important and will be kept in most states. I have the right to keep my private information to myself. I can give it if I want... but that is my choice. The feds want to make that choice for me which is exactly why I am against it.
Guns, ID, restriction, restriction, restriction... The constitution was made to protect the people from tyranny and an over aggressive government. This is exactly what it tries to protect us from.
~M
Where exactly in the Constitution does it prohibit a national ID card?
How many times has the government redesigned our currency because of counterfiet issues? And each time they do, they hail the new design as counterfiet proof. I'm not buying the national ID. If we really want to control illegal immigration, let's implement e-verify and enforce all of our existing immigration laws.
Face it, we already have a national ID system, it just isn't very effective because we're too paranoid.
Can a national ID card be made that is not as easy to fake? Sure. Finger prints or retina scans or whatever will absolutely identify an individual, and expose fake ID's. Some people throw up their hands in horror at this, but as a defense industry employee, I have been fingerprinted countless times, have had my background checked by the FBI, my neighbors were interviewed, and who knows what else they did. I voluntarily submitted to this to get security clearances that I needed to work on certain projects. I realized that it was a necessary process to protect classified information.
So, I think merely verifying the identification and citizenship status of a potential employee is a reasonable requirement. What's the problem?
There isn't any problem, except in the Libertarian (Republicans who want to do drugs)
mindset that tells them they cannot accept anything that points to government control over them (ex. "The feds want to make that choice for me which is exactly why I am against it")
One thing they forget is that if they and everyone particpate in the government, continually, then WE ARE the government, WE ARE the "feds", and the controls that exist are ones that WE put there, for our own protection.
"I do not live in fear of illegal immigrants, terrorists, serial killers, or identity thieves. I don't need a national ID card."
Form follows function. The function of a national ID card is to protect the people (in this case I guess we're talking about the USA) from all the HARMS of illegal immigration, which adversly affect hundreds of millions of people, not the fears, or lack of them, of any one person, or persons, in particular.
terrorists, criminals in general (including ID thieves). Just like police departments, we have them and they serve the whole community, regardless of whether anyone feels like we need them or not.
Bert:
Thanks for your perspective on the security issue.
Federal standards for identification are not authorized by the Constitution. It doesn’t matter whether they’re enforced through “laws” or economic “incentives” to the States.
It is unconstitutional because it is not stipulated that the federal government has that power to do so. Simple.
~M
I believe that certain powers, though not specifically granted in/by the Constitution, flow from other powers that are granted. The power to protect against (federal) criminal acts requires an enforcement capability (the FBI), though the Constitution doesn't mention anything like the FBI.
Anyway, it's not as simple as you have indicated.
Then since there is no mandatory national ID in the US, that means WE have chosen not to have one. WE THE PEOPLE have spoken. We ARE the government. The controls that currently exist are the ones WE put there.
"The function of a national ID card is to protect the people (in this case I guess we're talking about the USA) from all the HARMS of illegal immigration, which adversly affect hundreds of millions of people, not the fears, or lack of them, of any one person, or persons, in particular."
If WE are being harmed by anyone, including illegal immigrants, it is because WE choose to allow it. WE THE PEOPLE have spoken. We ARE the government. The controls currently in place are the ones WE put there.
Not necessarily, but when WE THE PEOPLE come up with a specific proposal, I'll happily take a look at it. As I've said, I don't personally feel the need for one, and your article and the resulting discussion has done absolutely nothing to change my mind.
~M
This government is so corrupt right now, I can't fathom why anyone would allow it this level of intrusion into their lives. Please keep in mind the timing of this. I know its been bantered about for a while, but ask yourselves why the sudden urgency. I believe it is nothing more than a convenient distraction from tools that really will do the job of stemming illegal immigration, like e-verify and employer sanctions, which cost next to nothing and are proven effective.
Also, when utilized, e-verify has proven not only to be very effective, but accurate 99.6% of the time. This, I believe, is why the federal government continues to quash it. They don't want a solution, because they need the problem.
The corrupt state of our federal government right now demands that American exercise the utmost caution when allowing intrusion into our lives, and this is an intrusion. 1984 is simply arriving several decades late. Again, this is unnecessary and ineffective.
Once again - we already have a national ID card in the Social Security card. It just happens to be lousy as ID, as pointed out above in several comments. If you have a driver's license, you already carry a STATEWIDE ID. State or Fed, what's the difference?
And if you want to study government corruption, have a look at your state legislature - that's where most of it is.
Perhaps you are not familiar with the nuts and bolts of the "Enforcement" you spoke of.
There is EWI at the borders, visa overstays, but perhaps most important to enforcement, is the 1986 IRCA law (Immigration Reform & Control Act), which made it illegal to KNOWINGLY hire or recruit illegal immigrants, and required employers to attest to their employees' immigration status.
This "knowingly" loophole is what has allowed illegal aliens and their illegal employers to circumvent the law for 23 years now. A tamperprood national ID, in addition E-verify, is critical to stopping the document fraud, which has allowed illegal immigration to flourish.
"...since there is no mandatory national ID in the US, that means WE have chosen not to have one."
No, it does not mean that. Silence does not equal assent. In fact, there are numerous things that people say "there oughta be a law", and there isn't one.
"If WE are being harmed by anyone, including illegal immigrants, it is because WE choose to allow it. WE THE PEOPLE have spoken."
Also not true. Much of the illegal immigration is caused by corrupt politicians (too many
Republicans in cahoots with illegal employers & too many Democrats sucking up for votes),
some of whom cheated (ex. George Bush) to get into office. It's also a result of people voting for politicans who support illegal immigration, not because of that issue, but because of a combination of other issues that that candidate supports (ex. univeral health coverage, withdrawl from Iraq, etc.).
Maybe we should have referendums on specific issues, instead if having to vote for politicians as package deals.
Wow! Now there's a post I'd like to see debated!!
Of course I personally believe that illegal immigrants should be eradicated from our country. However it's obvious that when our Government cracks down or attempts to solve one problem, it creates a host of unexpected negative consequences. It appears to be the same with the National ID Card.
Solving one problem obviously creates more problems. Is this built into our society?
But if we do nothing for fear of risking unintended consequences, we will die as a society. The rational way forward is to try to anticipate as many consequences of a decision as possible (by thinking it through, not by pretending that there won't be any) and be open minded enough to accept course corrections as necessary.
No, it does not mean that. Silence does not equal assent.
But you said "the controls that exist are ones that WE put there, for our own protection." A national ID is a control that doesn't exist because WE have not chosen to put it there. WE haven't been silent. WE've said "no".
In fact, there are numerous things that people say "there oughta be a law", and there isn't one.
Maybe there are good reasons for that. But since you haven't provided any specific examples, I guess it doesn't really matter.
Also not true. Much of the illegal immigration is caused by corrupt politicians (too many
Republicans in cahoots with illegal employers & too many Democrats sucking up for votes), some of whom cheated (ex. George Bush) to get into office.
Make up your mind, Robert F. Protectionist. Do you believe that WE are the government, or is the government a bunch of corrupt politicians? And if you believe the latter, then what does that say about those of us who voted to put those corrupt politicians into office?
"It's also a result of people voting for politicans who support illegal immigration, not because of that issue, but because of a combination of other issues that that candidate supports (ex. univeral health coverage, withdrawl from Iraq, etc.)."
I would imagine that in many of those cases, people voted that way because they considered those other issues more important than the illegal immigration issue.
"Maybe we should have referendums on specific issues, instead if having to vote for politicians as package deals."
Maybe. But how will we protect against the "tyrrany of the majority"?
"Make up your mind, Robert F. Protectionist. And if you believe the latter, then what does that say about those of us who voted to put those corrupt politicians into office? "
I'm not Robert, however I'd like to answer each of those questions.
"Do you believe that WE are the government, or is the government a bunch of corrupt politicians?"
Yes the Government is a bunch of corrupt politicians who have forgotten that they work for us. They may have been honest at first, but once elected, they become corrupt.
" And if you believe the latter, then what does that say about those of us who voted to put those corrupt politicians into office? "
Refer to answer number 1.
"WE haven't been silent. WE've said "no".
Once again, Wil in Wonderland attempts to recreate the American English language right before our eyes. Well, nice try # 175, Wil. Since you bothered to put the word "no" in quotation marks, that means you're saying that WE spoke against a national ID card. Well, when was that Wil ? Was it in a national referendum where WE voted and chose one or the other ?
I repeat : Silence does NOT equal assent.
"Make up your mind RFP. Do you believe that WE are the government, or is the government a bunch of corrupt politicians ? And if you believe the latter, then what does that say about those of us who voted to put those corrupt policians into office ?"
As you know quite well, Wandering Wil, my mind is made up quite well. Yes, I believe that WE (in an ideal sense) are the government, and I believe also that yes, it's made up of a bunch of corrupt politicians. What it says is that those corrupt politicians have been very effective in gerrymandering, excluding certain groups from voting, using faulty computer voting machines to "flip" votes (ex. from Kerry to Bush), and sucking up to monied special interests for campaign contributions (AKA legal bribes). And what it says about us is that WE need to work harder to get rid of those sellout creeps and make OUR government truly be OURS (not theirs).
"I would imagine that...."
I would imagine that what you really imagine is that illegal immigration is only one issue, and despite being a critically important one, it still is necessary to get Bush and his people (ex. McCain) out of office to prevent further senseless deaths in Iraq and in US homes due to a lack of medical coverage (as well as some other important issues).
I imagine that you agree with me, but just didn't want to say so. ABCDEFG.
'...how will we protect against the tyranny of the majority."
Do you have some examples of majority tyranny that you are afraid would be LIKELY to happen ?
I think you underestimate distrust of the federal
government that exists in large numbers of our
citizens. Maybe you don't care about that.