Things are a little slow this morning, so let's talk about national ID cards:
in two years i have never had to show a vaccine card or ID to get into any grocery store but erickson's casual dishonesty aside I will make a trade: we can have mandatory voter ID for all elections if we also have free universal ID (and registration) for all eligible Americans. https://t.co/Pqb5Lo7xlS
— b-boy bouiebaisse (@jbouie) January 13, 2022
Longtime readers will recognize this as a hobbyhorse of mine that I haven't mentioned lately. After all, what's the point? Everyone hates the idea.
But we shouldn't. A national ID card would be a huge convenience, especially for those at the bottom of the income ladder who don't have driver licenses or credit cards. It would be great for identifying yourself to vote and for proving your work status when you apply for a job. Those are both things that conservatives should appreciate.
And the downside? Virtually nothing. The main objection is that national ID is a sign of living in a "Papers please!" police state, but that's nonsense. Lots of countries—including Spain, Germany, Denmark, France, Italy, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and dozens of others—provide national ID cards and have nonetheless managed to remain free and democratic. That's especially true since no one would be required to have a national ID. It would simply be available to everyone.
The other big objection is that a national ID card is a way for the government to keep track of you. But that ship sailed a long time ago. The government already keeps track of you. They assign your Social Security number. They keep track of your criminal record. They dole out driver licenses. A national ID card does nothing to change that.
There's really no reason to object to a national ID and every reason to think it would be a great convenience. There would be a certain number of extremists on both sides who would resolutely refuse to cave in to the deep state and get one, but that's fine. It would still be nice if the other 95% of us could have one.
Doesn’t Cali offer and non drivers ID? NY does.
California’s ID card expires after 6 years. I get why a driver’s license expires, but why would an ID card expire?
It is one way to "clean up" after someone dies or if they move out of state.
I’m sorry, I just don’t get it. I go to get a prescription and they ask for ID. Today, I get my purchase. Tomorrow they refuse because my ID expired? What, I’m not me anymore because my ID has expired? It seems really nuts to me.
California's ID card identifies you as not simply iamr4man but iamr4man, resident of the State of California. If it never expired, you would never no longer be a resident of the State of California, absent the state doing other, slightly big-brother checks to see if you were still living in the state.
Facebook probably knows more about me than the government and I’m not even on Facebook.
Have you not ever moved and not changed your DL? Does the bartender care where you live? All you are doing is confirming your identity.
I suppose in the not too distant future these things will all be on our phones which are tracking us in any case.
Have you not ever moved and not changed your DL?
It's actually against the law.
Here in NC you have 30 days to update your DL once you move
Why?
Money.
Insurance companies base their rates for property theft on crime rates in their states, NOT your old state of residence
In some cases your insurance rates actually go down, but many people just don't want to bother.
But, also, here in NC we have motor voter registration. You want to vote? Change your drivers license. The last time I renewed it I got the combo License and ID.
Kevins got the right idea and 30 states have motor voter laws but others do not. The PROBLEM comes in when a person who does NOT drive wants to vote. They don't go to the DMV. We SHOULD have some sort of program in place that would send a person out to these folks to "give" them an ID.
Why would an ID card expire? LIke, to update the photo on it? I assume that when people speak of ID cards, they mean "photo ID".
I saw a company ID once on this white haired elderly man. His ID picture was of a strapping young man with coal black hair.
I can see the need to update photos but not every six years.
California offers a plain ID card. I have no idea about the city in Colombia.
Everyone in the city in Colombia has a national ID card.
Yeah, I react to "Cali" the same way people from San Francisco react to "Frisco."
I'm pretty sure every state offers a non-drivers-license ID card.
Yes, but it is necessary to have a birth certificate (at a minimum). So, if you don’t have one or need legal or financial assistance to get, you’re not getting a state ID card and, presumably, you’re not getting a national ID card, either.
Why? Residency doesn't count? Direct deposit info on Social Security doesn't count?
Hell, in NC you can open a bank acct without a picture ID. I did it myself.
Waved a certified bank check for $50K in front of a teller. Provide legal address and a pay stub and was good to go.
Now, later on that bank asked when I renewed that account that I come in for a picture ID to be put on the bank card itself. Not a bad idea but considering they took both still and moving pictures of me when I made the deposit into my new account I found it annoying. I did it anyway because I love my bank and they love my business.
But if you are a republican and don't want to disclose your booster status, because of HIPPA then you obviously have domestic terrorism in the back of your mind ----snark for sure - and YOU won't want a national ID card.
But, presumably, the national identity card would require some for a breeder document to obtain if it would be made obligatory for essential services, such as u see Kevin’s proposal. If it could be obtained without some kind of proof of identity, it would essentially be meaningless.
If it would require proof of identity such as a birth certificate, a social security card, or a driving license it would essentially replicate the present system. Those who can secure the necessary documents could get a card (if they were able to spend the time and money necessary to secure their breeder documents) but those who cannot will be unable to obtain one of Kevin’s new national identity cards, just as they cannot obtain driving licenses or passports today.
Mitch-
If the National ID card is used primarily for voting its' useless anyway because those that DON'T have a social security number, or drivers license don't usually vote.
I would be surprised if the reason was lack of breeder documents for those that don't vote.
The REAL issue is criminals. They have the documents so when they pay their price to society for the crimes they committed we SHOULD allow them to vote
But republicans don't want that because over twice as many blacks are in jail as opposed to whites so they want to make sure they don't get their right to vote back......
When I went to renew my (expired) ID in Ohio, I had to start all over, birth certificate, etc., despite the fact that they were looking at my old ID with photo that actually looked like me. They required not only a birth certificate, but a marriage license from 1973 to show that I had once changed my name. I refused to pay $50 and wait several months for Philadelphia to send me one. I got a passport with no problem at all. Only problem is that here in Appalachian Ohio, a lot of people don't know what a passport card is. and hesitate to take it for ID
Yes, but it is necessary to have a birth certificate and social security number (at a minimum). So, if you don’t have one or need legal or financial assistance to get them, you’re not getting a state ID card and, presumably, you’re not getting a national ID card, either.
My state does too but you have to waste a lot of time waiting in line at the DMV to get one which is a huge inconvenience, especially for the elderly, people who can’t get time off from work or those who don’t have transportation. And you have to pay for it which amounts to having a poll tax. I would have hated to have to have taken my elderly mother to the DMV to get an ID. It would have been very stressful for her but she always voted. A quick trip to the library would not have been a big deal.
If we did have free national i.d cards we need to have a much more convenient way for people to get them — public libraries, mobile id vans, etc.
I agree that the US should offer a free, biometric, national ID card. As mentioned in the article, these types of ID are common in many countries.
Of course the would be pushback. I have a friend who does legal work for immigrant rights and she hates the idea of a national ID: likely the undocumented would be excluded.
The ACLU also dislikes the idea
https://www.aclu.org/other/5-problems-national-id-cards
They would be excluded by definition. Those with green cards or other residency permits for non-nationals would have national ID cards so designated. Policies dealing with undocumented people are a separate issue from having an ability to better recognize them.
You don't think the GOP will not scream and make a huge deal of not showing citizen status on these cards?
"Those with green cards or other residency permits for non-nationals would have national ID cards so designated."
That means status would be "so designated" on the cards.
"the other 95% of us"
In what world do 95% agree on anything?
I was thinking the same thing. No doubt it would be demonized by conspiracy theorists. I would guess the adoption rate would be below the Covid vaccination rate.
I'm in. I have been a registered alien, had to go and sign in yearly, so I am use to it. Time to get a brain folks. It would be the ideal way to get numbers, contact people and it just is good sense. I also had one in Japan. Everyone is numbered. Like it or not.
DMVs already offer ID cards for non drivers. I'd support making those free (which BTW they are not in Switzerland--nor probably int the other countries you mention). But there is still the fact that nobody ever got anything done at the DMV without spending a half day waiting for a clerk to have time for them....
The problem is the lack of proper population registration at the town level (all European countries have that) which is the basis from which to issue the ID cards. It makes the process cumbersome.
DMVs in many state have gotten a lot more efficient (assuming Covid hasn't thrown a monkey wrench in the works),. When I git my Maryland DL after moving here I got there first thing and was in and out in 15 minutes.
However the logical place for a nation ID card to be processed would be the post office-- since we already do passports there.
Why would we care what town a person ;lived in (mailing the cards to the person's address they give would verify their address)? It's a national ID card, valid anywhere, not limited to a single locality.
I think the point about European countries gathering and maintaining data mostly at the smallest, most local level is that the (at least in the past), people tended to stay put so they or their families were usually personally known to the officials of their town or village or arrondissement. Similarly, it’s much easier and less cumbersome to collect and collate information at the most local level.
This makes it much easier to administer a system of identity cards (usually applied for near where one lives and has lived for generations) and it also makes the results infinitely easier and more reliable.
~330 million people, $30 a pop ignoring the $35 administrative fee for the first application. Call it a cool $10 billion to implement, and then some amount each year to cover new people and renewals. Nope, doesn't seem too heinous.
Actually, it would cost many, many more billions to fix the main deficiencies in our record keeping systems. For example, birth and death records are not reconciled which makes the (admittedly more high end) “Day of the Jackal” passports a perennial favorite. But unless those deficiencies are addressed, the new national identity card is just security theater.
I am not a fan of government tracking but as you said, I got my passport the day after Trump won so it doesn't matter and it is definitely handy for airports and such. Yeah as long as it is free to anyone who wants it it's fine.
When I look at Kevin's picture, I see a hardened libertarian redneck. Behind those clenched lips is the sentence he's barely able to hold in: "You think you'll get me to sign up for that, you big-government communist?"
I guess this is a good illustration of why we should be hesitant to assume we can read a book by glancing at its cover.
One stop shopping for address and name changes???
If we have national ID cards, Republicans will pass laws requiring some additional document. They are not concerned with voter fraud because they know it doesn't really exist. They just want to make it harder for Democratic constituencies to vote.
Why do we always have to pretend that Republicans' arguments have merit or are made in good faith?
If we can get a national ID card law passed we can pass a law saying it must be accepted valid for certain activities, such as voting.
Whoa, there! To do that, then you DO have to put citizenship on the ID card, which is a major sticking point for many folks, and is also a major cost increment in the process.
I've been advocating this for a long time as a way to triangulate GOP's own arguments and end up with automated voter registration for all citizens.
The problem with the idea is that it's counterproductive in the American context. As James Powell observed above, the entire point of the demand for "voter ID" isn't the desire to have better elections; the GOP's entire motivation is to exclude Democratic leaning voters. That means if such Democratic leaning voters lack ID cards now, the GOP will ensure that the process for obtaining the cards will exclude them in the future.
Another, closely related problem, is that people who don't have ID cards lack them for either economic reasons (can't afford time away from work), difficulties of access, or else a lack of the requisite breeder documents. Thus, the people at the very bottom of the society or who lack documents today will not benefit from Kevin's national ID card because they will still be unable to obtain one—and the implication is that those people will, in fact, be measurably worse off.
This sounds like a solvable problem. The people you think will end up being excluded almost certainly all have social security numbers and also take advantage of other federal government programs. The system could be set up so that federal offices all do outreach to try to get everyone a card. There could be a mandate to ensure that every US citizen has some kind of valid id.
In fact, there's huge numbers of people who don't have Social Security numbers (or at least not legitimate ones). The essential document is the birth certificate, and a lot of people don't have that either.
There are private organizations that have been trying to do exactly the kind of outreach you're talking about and have found it extremely difficult, very time-consuming, and exceedingly expensive. Even if the necessary breeder documents exist, it can be very difficult and expensive to obtain them. And it frequently requires professional, legal intervention to get non-traditional documents authenticated and accepted by the authorities.
Again, the key difference is that the US's system for recording births, deaths, etc is so fragmented, chaotic, and grossly underfunded that implementing a national ID card system would either be prohibitively expensive or dangerously sloppy.
The Brennan Center for Justice has been working on this for many years. They've got lots of material on their website. This is one of many good articles:
https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/ensure-every-american-can-vote/vote-suppression/voter-id
You really make an effort to be as dense as possible, don't you? National IDs aren't just options in front of which hurdles can be placed, but are the legally required identification which every adult citizen must carry. I know that's how it works in Germany, and I'm pretty sure it works that way in all the other countries Kevin mentioned.
Yes, that’s certainly true. But if you would read my comments (and those of many others in this thread), you would see that there are arguments about why most European countries are able to have national identity cards and why we face probably insurmountable obstacles (they have a social and governmental infrastructure to make collecting and maintaining information about births, deaths, and incomers easy and reliable and we don’t).
To look at one such issue: it is almost under heard of for a child to be born in most European countries without a record of his or her birth being recorded in his village, town, or arrondissement. Throughout a person’s life, he or she will have many interactions with local officials (both casual and official) which will eliminate problems with verification of identity and which make the assumption of a false identity more difficult. By contrast, in this country, it’s not uncommon for recent immigrants, people living along the border with Mexico, or people living in rural areas or backwards states like Mississippi not to have officially recorded births, officially recorded deaths, or social security number which as sequenced to match their date of birth or they don’t have them at all because the parents never applied for a social security number.
Similarly, outside of the UK (who social information gathering infrastructure more closely resembles our own), identity threat or the creation of “paper men” or even obtaining something as basic (but expensive) as a “Day of the Jackal” passport is significantly more difficult because of the system for interacting with the government described above.
Overall, then, it seems to me that the differences in social organization between ourself and European countries like France or Germany count very strongly against your argument about the ease of setting up a national identity card system.
Mitch, perhaps you missed hearing about it in history class, but there was a major war across much of Europe several decades ago, and quite a number of towns and cities were totally destroyed, including a fair number of birth records. And yet, they still managed ID cards.
I think you are somewhat missing the forest for the trees. This main point isn’t about the existence of different kind of records but rather it’s the social infrastructure in which interactions with the government (particularly those involving identity cards and social services) take place. In France, these interactions were almost entirely in person and usually in or quite near a place where your family had lived for many. This has obviously been changing but movement to cities was limited and people tended to stay close to where they were born until roughly the 1970’s and this made obtaining false (not forged) documents extremely difficult and it made the creation of identity documents extremely easy and secure.
So, for example, even in post-war France and still today, almost every birth is recorded. in most villages and smaller towns (until recently that’s how most of the population lived), there were formalities (it’s France) but it wasn’t difficult to obtain an identity card even without breeder documents because everyone within the jurisdiction of a particular governmental district more or less knew everyone.
That’s certainly not the case in modern America. As Ive mentioned, there’s people regularly born at home or in rural areas or less modern parts of the country whose birth is either not recorded or where the birth certificate isn’t completed (I once knew a man born in Mississippi who was named “Infant Coleman” because his parents never got his birth certificate properly filled out—not a problem of the DOC but the poor man had a devil of a time getting a driving license from the State of Louisiana). These are people that the American system cannot accommodate because they don’t have, and typically can’t get, the necessary breeder documents. So, on the one hand, the same people who are shut out of getting things like driving licenses and passports would continue to be shut out. But, on the other hand, Kevin’s system would be even less secure than the current system for obtaining driving licenses.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/coalition-statement-opposition-national-voter-identification-card
I agree. The Dems should have long ago said they fully agree on photo ID for voting and that we need to make sure that every US citizen has some form of valid photo ID and pushed a program to make this happen.
" Everyone hates the idea"
Who's everyone? I think the only objection I recall hearing on the left is worry that it will be implemented in a discriminatory way where everyone doesn't actually get the ID, and roadblocks are designed to prevent groups from getting the IDs for political purposes.
The right hates the idea. They claim it's because they don't want the government keeping track of us, which is ridiculous as Kevin points out. The government knows your SSN, where you live, where you work, how much money you make and so on.
They don't want a national ID because they fear it will interfere with their plans to prevent people that they don't like from voting.
While we're at it though we need a national voter registration database.
There is another reason Republicans don’t like it. Republicans cater to their base, right wing Christians. I first encountered opposition to IDs in the early eighties talking to a “born again” co-worker. She told me that it was the plan of Satan and that the numbers 666 would be on the cards. And in the future we would have chips with that mark implanted in our foreheads. Lately I’ve seen that type of thinking in far greater numbers than I thought possible in those days.
It'd be a real shame if all those christofacists refused to get the ID and couldn't vote. Just terrible.
yes, this is the real reason. All these state Voter ID laws are constructed to filter out likely non-GOP voters (see "gun license ok, student id not ok for voting".)
It seems to me that Kevin’s never addressed any of the actual problems involved in setting up a system of national ID cards in the America that actually exists. Here’s three, closely integrated problems, that would need to be addressed:
1. The people who don’t have ID cards in the present system would still be unable to obtain them in Kevin’s system. A very large number of people who lack ID cards don’t have them because they can afford to get them. Obtaining the necessary documents is time-consuming and not easy for most people, dealing the government agencies like the DMV and the Passport Office is even more difficult and time-consuming. And expensive, when I got my first passport as a child, my mom paid for a birth certificate, took me to a photographer, and made two trips to the federal building. That was a significant commitment of time and money; now the process is complicated enough that I (a reasonably well educated lawyer) eventually used a private service to have my last passport renewed.
2. Apart from the investment of time and money which many people can’t afford, there’s still a huge number of people who simply lack the necessary documents to qualify for a driving license or a passport. There’s lots of people born along the southern borders or in rural areas that don’t automatically get birth certificates and those are the sine qua non for obtaining driving licenses, passports, and, undoubtedly, Kevin’s new national ID cards.
3. The problem with breeder documents means that the national ID card would be no more secure than a current driving license. As others have pointed out, one of the main reasons why national ID cards work in Europe is that all kinds of records and (birth, death, marriage, etc) are assiduously collected and maintained. That’s not the case here. There are large gaps in the collection of records, particularly birth certificates. Even domestically created documents are difficult and vary tremendously not just by states but even within individual states. I’m not even talking about high-end, “Day of the Jackal” passports but, realistically, even cheap forgeries that are available on street corners will allow people to easily gain a valid national ID card.
The essential problem with national ID cards is that they are a make believe solution. Essentially, GIGO.
Yes, it's clearly impossible to solve problems that multiple other countries solved decades ago. /s
he didn't say it was impossible. he listed 3 major problems which make it very unlikely and difficult to implement fairly and effectively.
Moreover, the fact that some sub populations may face delays in getting their IDs doesn't mean society as a whole could implement such a program. But sure, perhaps some folks don't get their IDs in year one of the rollout, but in year three.
If you don’t have and can’t obtain a birth certificate in year one, it seems unlikely that now materialize by year three. The fundamental problem is that many people are never able to acquire the necessary documents, which do not even exist in many cases of people on the border, in rural areas, or in less advanced states. So it seems clear that we cannot have a viable national identity card that does not exclude immigrants, people who live on the border with Mexico or rural people, or people who lives in places like Texas and Mississippi.
These problems of access have been well known for decades but have not been addressed by either party, not even the democrats whose voters tend to have more problems with this kind of thing.
Labour in the United Kingdom began to introduce a modern national ID card system there a few years back. It was a total disaster and it ended up costing a fortune (mainly due to the scale of the computer systems designed to implement the biometric systems) before being shelved by the Conservatives when they got back in.
The libertarian and hard right wing of the Conservative party also went bananas opposing the concept.
But incompetence by the Brits is hardly something we should be letting guide us.
But, actually it is something we should look at since the English system very closely resembles our own. Over the centuries, information gather and the maintaining of records or births, deaths, etc has become increasingly impersonal and centralized. This is partly the natural result of an increasingly mobile populace that’s increasingly living in large city that are governed by larger city or countywide governments.
The inability of the English to implement such a system should be seen as a harbinger, not something to be ignored or easily dismissed.
A national ID data base that is non-discriminatory and non-punitive would be an enormous asset in providing vital services after a natural catastrophe or during a pandemic such as we are in now. It would also vastly improve upon our current once-in-a-decade census.
I think Kevin's point is that maybe there are legit serious concerns re privacy, federal govt being able to monitor you , civil liberties, etc. Which are valid and were very arguable for years past.
But today , there is just no point. With all the internet tracking ability, electronic monitoring, all sorts of required documents, etc., a federal govt agency already has the ability to monitor and track you , and does not really need a federal ID to do so.
The only difference a federal ID would serve is allowing the individual to prove their identity to others, such as when voting.
Basically a legitimate argument against this had been superceded by technology, making the possible harm unavoidable anyway. So when the " cost " side is unavoidable ( or at least cannot be prevented by not doing it anymore ) you just do it and take the benefits.
And I do agree with Kevin on this.
And note you can carve out an exception for the few holdouts that are OK with not getting one and not being able to do anything which requires it. You can even build in an exception still allowing voting with some safeguards without it , requiring more time consuming measures.
So , if someone wants to live off the grid and just grow crops and sell them, and never travel, etc. And rely on certifications of others rigorously applied to vote, and never get that ID, OK.
I'd go further and follow Estonia. https://e-estonia.com/
Well I tell you Dale, I have no problem with it (so long as I can walk around without having to carry it). But I do assume that the crazies will just say that Dems are giving fake IDs to people so we have to get even more documents to vote. Maybe the R’s will only vote for its creation if they allow states to require a second document. Or some other roadblock. Maybe this will magically clear up the problem, but I doubt it.
In some states, Republicans have been fine with providing free state ID when changing law to require voter ID.
Basically, maybe with Republicans, you might have three groups .
A) those who really do just want it in order to surpress votes
B) those who really do want it in order to prevent voter fraud but , if also suppresses dem votes, not unhappy
C) those who really only want it to prevent voter fraud and do not want to surpress votes and are OK with any measure to reasonably avoid that.
And democrats might be three groups
A) those who really want no voter ID to allow them to committ fraud .
B) those who really do oppose it as unfair voter suppression but , if also allowing them a little fraud, well OK
C) those who really are just concerned with voter suppression and have no intent to allow fraud .
Seems many conservatives think most liberals are in group A and many liberals think most conservatives are in their group A.
But that is just wrong and very few have such motives on either side . And this proposal will maybe reveal to both sides, if it gets support from both sides, that the other side really is not as bad as they thought. That alone is worth it to me.
What complicates things is the other civil liberties concern which is real and valid and has nothing to do with voting. And is held on principle mostly by conservatives and some on the farther left . But where I agree with Kevin is that this is no longer relevant - fed govt no longer needs such a national ID to track you if it wants.
And , on immigration, complicated because some on the left oppose it BECAUSE they want to allow immigration which is against current law and has nothing to do with voting. And this principled position is more open ( nobody will say they want to make voter fraud easy or surpress votes).
Issuing ID cards is a good idea, especially for the urban poor, who do not have cars and no drivers licenses, but more important is automatically registering everyone to vote when they turn 18. Every citizen should be eligible to vote without having to register.
Bingo! And when rightwing nuts (aka "Republicans") refuse to get an ID or accept one that's offered, they remove themselves from the voter rolls -- and a whole lot of other things.
Tme for the Dems to flipflop on this issue and start promoting it.
Well, if you are serious, then you just put yourself in what I referred to as republican group a ( evil) or b ( semi evil ) except in reverse .
Because you are advocating for democrats to support this for the purpose of suppressing votes, just republican votes . And you seem to feel that most democrats also have such a nefarious motivation. So you are effectively admitting to what democrats accuse Republicans of being - deliberate vote suppressors.
But , unless you insist on trying to defend such a statement, I will take it as a joking comment and hope you meant it that way. But don't joke in that manner as that sort of thing is believed by both sides as the motive of the other .
But it does bring up a good point. The idea that Republicans do not want voter ID to surpress democratic votes is inherently based on the idea that it is democrats who are more likely to not be able to obtain such voter ID . But is that true. Your statement focused on presumed republican willingness to not accept the ID. but what about access and ability.
The presumption has generally been that anything that disadvantaged the poorest, least educated, most stupid, etc. hurt democrats. And that did used to be true as education tended to be more correlated with being republican and so was income. But that is changing. Today, yes, part of the dem coalition is more minorities who ( other than asians ) are somewhat poorer, less educated and less able to get ID . But among whites , the democratic coalition tends to be more educated and higher income and more able to get ID. Those whites who cannot easily get ID are more likely republican.
So which parties votes would be suppressed if at all by requiring voter ID?
One thing a national ID would do is maybe help tone down the partisanship on some issues .
Re voter ID, no matter what many here think ( who feel they know exactly what conservatives think without actually talking to them) , conservatives really do want voter ID in order to prevent voter fraud which they feel is too common. And that is why a huge majority of the public, including many if not most democrats, agree . If they are wrong and democrats are really only objecting to voter ID because they are concerned with voter suppression, or they are right and democrats are trying to cheat , does not matter if everyone agrees that we will have a solid free govt issued voter ID . Now hard to cheat even if you want to and cannot suppress the vote if the voter ID is free and available. So both sides can just drop it and stop inferring bad motives of the other side .
And on immigration, it might be more complex. The question there is do democrats just want a humane immigration system that still respects the law , or do they want to allow illegal immigrants to break the law ? A national ID required to get employment and/or access govt benefits makes it very difficult to illegally immigrate and have any benefit doing so. Would work far better than a border wall to stop illegal immigration. But then you actually have to enforce the law with the ID.
What that would do is at least clarify the dispute. Are more liberal democrats just wanting a more humane enforcement of immigration law but agree the law should be enforced as much as possible? Or do they actually want illegal immigration, in which case they really should be advocating a change in law and conceding if majority rule opposed that.
A national ID at least clarifies the issue . And avoids conservatives believing that ALL opposition to an ID is just for the purpose of allowing illegal immigration. There some is and some liberals will be forced to argue just that as you see above with the example of the immigration rights activist.
Excellent points. If done right it could truly be a trifecta in addressing multiple issues of both parties.
Conservatives just want to harass the foreigners, so meeting them halfway will only result in new demands. See Obamacare.
And Mitch's concerns re practicality in implementing, while real, are not that hard to solve.
Yes , a minority will have problems gathering docs to prove their identity to get the ID card . So maybe we have to have govt workers to provide assistance there free and that increase the cost substantially above Rick's estimated 30 a person. So it doubles it to 20 billion. We can afford that.
Note the real ID you will need soon to fly is effectively a required national ID issued by states in order to do something most want to do. It really is not that big a step to extend it to a full national ID for voting , employment, etc.
And yes, might not be perfect. Due to lack of documents, might need to issue the ID where the proof they are that person is not absolute.
For real ID and flying, a big concern. For voting? If a very few want to go to the trouble of faking docs in order to vote illegally, the number will be minimal. More illegal aliens will be faking docs to work . And no national ID requirement is going to be so rigorous as to 100% stop that . And , if you want to stop it for voting , increase the penalties if caught if use for voting.
Say it is one year in jail if non citizen illegal fakes docs to get an ID and work . But ten years if used to vote . Near nobody will vote with fake ID then.
Again, I agree.
Mitch raises in particular the problem that a number of people lack birth certificates. However, for many of them this already creates huge problems in their lives since getting any type of photo ID often requires showing a birth certificate. Here is a recent article about how an elderly woman can't get into subsidized housing due to not having a photo ID, something for which a birth certificate is required in the state where she lives. So instead of shrugging our shoulders at all this, it's better when we understand it as a problem which should be urgently solved. As a federal project with an overarching goal and adequate funding, we would finally have the motivation and resources to address the issue and solve a variety of problems for large numbers of Americans at the same time.
The majority, I think, either has a birth certificate or can get one if needed so don't present a significant problem to introducing a national ID. For the rest there would need to be some sort of verification procedure established, which would encompass other records and possibly affidavits to ascertain citizenship. Yes, this would be time consuming and costly, but it would also be a mountain that would only need to be climbed once. Afterwards, there would be datacenters and procedures established which would document all births yet to come.
I apparently didn't close the URL properly and can't edit my post so here's the link to the article:
https://www.wtoc.com/2021/04/21/born-without-birth-certificate-lifelong-struggle-some-south/
Sure I'm not the first here today to suggest it, but they could just put your picture on your Social Security card and that'd be it. Likewise it could be everybody's passport, and if they ever manage to pass post office banking, or Medicare for All, it could serve a lot of purposes in an all-for-one, one-for-all, all-at-once ID. Only imbeciles and coocoo-nuts would reject it. Fine. They're in love with their complicated and pre-rational lives; their loss.
There still are a small number who never have gotten a ss number and still have the right to vote , etc
And a social security card does not have the type of verification that a real national ID kevin is talking about..so probably not quite that easy .
But I think what is required for a " real idea" i think is. Anything " good enough " to stop a terrorist is good enough for voting security or employment.
And , if federal govt is REQUIRING you to get an ID to vote which is constitutionally protected, then burden of proof should be on govt , and default is you get the ID.
So poor person A has problem getting the docs as Mitch described . And they apply for a voter ID giving whatever they have making as good an effort as they know how. So then that sets a deadline for the govt to issue an ID or research and show with good evidence ( maybe not beyond reasonable doubt but more than preponderance) that this person is really not a us citizen. If some older person living in usa by evidence from neighbors for decades and has no birth certificate really proving that, they get ID. If actually someone who illegally snuck over border thirty years ago and still not us citizen and they slip through, big deal . That will be so few.
And could open up a more serious discussion on consensus re illegal immigration and amnesty. Conservatives generally oppose this as feel a scam and they have been tricked before by " just this once and then we will enforce the law". Periodic amnesty is effectively no law at all and allows unrestricted immigration. As long as they can sneak over and hide out for x years, they know another amnesty will be coming.
But something like a PERMANENT amnesty program requiring you to manage to avoid ice enforcement actively trying to find and deport you for x years and then you get a pathway to citizenship, that is basically like a criminal statute of limitations.
And the harder it is to avoid ice and get deported, or get around a hard ID requirement, the shorter the period needs to be. The point being that only a minority should make it and most illegal immigrants should get deported. And somewhat of a way to sort them into the most talented who will be valuable new citizens.
How would you determine what picture to put on the Social Security card? Particularly since the process for obtaining one doesn't actually involve identifying oneself.
Better yet
Put a QR code on the birth certificate.
Aren't there unlimited variations they could use?
Sorry
Then when you get your license just add THAT QR code to the DL.
Social Security card if obtained has the same QR code
Same for ID cards
If people can't get and/or the government can control/validate breeder documents like birth certificates (necessary to get the driving license), then it's all just circular. People who can't get the one, will likewise be unable to get the other.
What would be necessary would be to start by having a federal system with the same requirements and forms being used by everyone. Intelligent national requirements administered in the most local way possible (perhaps at a local post office) would start future generations off reasonably well. I have no idea how you'd get people who can't get driving licenses now into the system without basically rendering it meaningless.
The only thing that would make a meaningful difference would be some kind of DNA sample that could be used to validate the birth certificate and show that the person seeking to obtain it was entitled to it. But this would be extremely cumbersome, extremely expensive and would require application to be made in person. Also, there’s really no way to update the birth certificates of the hundreds of millions who have already been born.
Also, I wouldn’t assume that convicts who’ve served their time or even been pardoned have the necessary documents. I mentioned earlier a man I knew named “Infant Coleman” whose identity was okay for purposes of the DOC and being booked into the Parish Prison but who had a very hard time because “Infant” was a placeholder name used by hospitals and consequently the DMV refused to accept his birth certificate for years.
We have a system which is almost unique and which would require huge investments and societal changes if the national identity card is to be anything more than a glorified driving license.
Not just a National ID card
The best idea would be to have the Post Office as a National Bank and give every American adult citizen a simple bank account
If you have better service elsewhere you don't need to use it - but everybody could have a bank account for any Government income and for things like cashing cheques
I have been saying the same thing for years. Social security, unemployment, the child tax credit, tax refunds etc. should be deposited by the government and conversely individuals should be able to make transfers in to it for things like quarterly estimated taxes.
I also want the account number to be based upon your SSN+. An SSN+ being a couple of characters longer than an SSN to make it truly unique. This should then be coupled with a law that makes it illegal to use an SSN as the something you know part of account authentication. An SSN should be like your email address. It identifies the account/individual but access requires authentication using something else like a password.
As for all the arguments about a national id card not being able to solve all of the problems of the existing system, they don't make any sense to me. The question is not whether it is perfect only that it is much better than what we have now. One fix I can think of right off the bat is that the burden of proof should not be on those who cannot produce the requisite existing documentation. Sorry for the double negative there, but but put another way if the government cannot prove within some time period that the person is not who they claim to be then the ID should be issued. I don't know maybe we could call this innocent until proven guilty or something.
That is one supremely bad photograph. It even goes beyond DMV-bad.
This whole discussion is fascinating for a European/Swede like me. In my country, we are completely monitored our whole lives, being given a unique identifying number immediately after birth. This number is key to doing anything and everything in Sweden, from opening a bank account to registering as a frequent customer at your local food store. It is impossible to live in Sweden without such a number, which also means that anyone being a resident in the country for any period of time is given one (such as temporary workers, refugees applying for staying permits, ...). When you get a driver's license, this number is the key information on the card, likewise for passports and national IDs.
This also means that any statistics on our citizens is extremely accurate, since almost everything that happens to us in life is registered using this one and the same key identifier, and everybody has one. It may seem scary being this monitored by Big Brother, and there are drawbacks of course, but it also gives a lot of security.
Obviously it is a huge task to initiate something like this when you don't already have the necessary records. Sweden had an immense advantage in having kept meticulous church records of births, marriages, address changes, deaths and so on for a very long time.
Our "personnummer" system is the reason why we can have charts like this, for example, and actually know that it shows reality:
https://adamaltmejd.se/covid/
"The other big objection is that a national ID card is a way for the government to keep track of you."
Screams everyone with a cell phone in their pocket or purse.
"a sign of living in a "Papers please!" police state, " It's now a crime not to carry id on you everywhere (Never enforced agaubst whutes).. So that ship has sailed.
Call me skeptical. A national ID database will surely have a target painted in bright red colors to all foreign hackers just as state databases, in particular voting, are. No database would be more highly prized than that which included every American and had biometrics and full personal data.