The debate is over how biometric passports should be used. And we should have that debate. And I hope Pastor loses.
Bear in mind that a discussion over how biometric passports should be used would not establish that Pastor's idea is why they were implemented in the first place.
What, though, do BCCs, or even all visas, have to do with ID for US citizens? As shown in this study, it is difficult to enforce just the BCCs 72 hour/25 mile/no work policy, without also checking IDs of non-immigrants within about 100 miles of the border; after all, BCC holders are not wearing special BCC tattoos on their foreheads. As also explained in this study, a BCC holder must carry the card at all times; it will be seen that would also need to be a feature of any effective (i.e., not just for show) National ID.Therefore, there is not only the desire and wish for allowing increased migration INTO the US by non-Americans, it will become even more likely that ALL Americans will also have to have an ID. Every they do is in STEPS, i.e., INCREMENTALISM. And that is how the NAU, or whatever acronym it will end up being called, WILL come into existence.Because one can't tell by looking if someone is a citizen (and if an employer for example acts as if they can tell, it's discrimination), situations requiring ID from non-citizens will, in fairness, require ID from everyone. The discussion below of employment eligibility verification shows that, more generally, effective ID for non-citizens is unless we have discriminatory profiling a slippery slope to mandatory ID for everyone (thus, ironically, anti-discrimination can be a slippery slope to wholesale, as opposed to selective, privacy invasion). And, as also shown below, discriminatory policies produce security loopholes.
In sum, the US/Mexican border, and the Border Crossing Card in particular, provides a useful real-world way to think about and discuss National ID. This makes sense; it is often said that borders and immigration are at the forefront of social issues.