Posted on 05/10/2005 11:21:59 AM PDT by yatros from flatwater
Civil libertarians hate the idea, because in the ACLU's phrase, it "takes us one step closer to a national ID." What's rarely stated is why a national ID would be such a bad thing.
Discussion about whether the U.S. needs some kind of federal identification card has been around for years. Several countries already have national ID cards; according to Privacy International, this list includes Germany, France, Belgium, Greece, Luxembourg, Portugal and Spain. 9-11 revived the push, and national ID proponents might secure their first victory next week when the Senate votes on the conference committee version of the $82 billion supplemental funding bill for Iraq and Afghanistan that the House OK'd yesterday.
One section of the bill prohibits the federal government from accepting state driver's licenses or other ID cards that don't meet certain "minimum document requirements." These include a digital photo, machine-readable technology, and "physical security features designed to prevent tampering, counterfeiting or duplication." States will also be required to demand certain documents from applications, including "evidence of lawful status" in the United States. And states will be required to retain paper copies of those documents for seven years, or digital copies for 10 years.
A coalition of groups opposes the Real ID Act, including the National Council of State Legislatures and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. They argue that the feds can't tell them how to run their driver's license bureaus, that the technology required is not yet available, and that driver's licenses are supposed to be for keeping driving safe—not securing America's borders.
But underlying all those concerns is the worry that the Real ID is a backdoor to a national identification card and what the ACLU calls a "show us your papers" society.
Maybe we're already there: I mean, the federal government already knows my social security number, the names of my wife and kid, how much money I make, where I work, where I bank, and all other sorts of neat stuff. So it's not obvious that it'd be a big deal for them to put a name and face together. What's the big deal?
"The simple answer is that it gives the government greater ability to control the actions of private individuals," says Electronic Privacy Information Center executive director Marc Rotenberg. "It has generally been the view in this country that one of the core aspects of personal freedom is to be free of government control."
"Identification is a form of coercion," Rotenberg continued. "It's a way someone says you can't do what you want to do unless you prove who you are."
Besides their objections to the National ID in principle, civil libertarians are irked that conservatives are trying to introduce such a fundamental change bit-by-bit through laws like Real ID.
There are other reasons to dislike the Real ID act. It explicitly places the burden of proof on people applying for asylum status. "There is no presumption of credibility," the bill reads. The immigration official deciding a case can ask for evidence, and if a person can't get evidence because it lies outside the U.S., "the inability to obtain corroborating evidence does not excuse the applicant from meeting the applicant's burden of proof." And the bill limits judicial review of immigration decisions.
Real ID sponsor James Sensenbrenner, Republican of Wisconsin, said in a statement that, "This legislation will tighten our asylum system, which has been abused by terrorists."
But the National Immigration Law Center points out that "terrorists are already ineligible for asylum." The American Immigration Law Foundation notes:
Republican staff on the House Judiciary Committee provided the Voice with a list of examples of terrorists who have abused U.S. asylum laws. There are seven examples:
Immigrant advocates don't find the list impressive. "Those who seek refuge in America from persecution are our allies in the fight for democracy and against despotism," argues the NILC. "By sheltering these courageous individuals, we send a signal of support to those who remain under the kinds of regimes that foster terrorism."
The United States in 2003 received 42,000 applications for asylum (people who come here but say they can't go home, as opposed to refugees who apply overseas). The government approved 29 percent of them.
I'll stick with my passport, thanks.
I already have one. It's called a Social Security Card.
Yeah sounds like the old Government is on its way to controlling the masses at even greater lengths. I really dont see a need for this just lock down the mexican borders if you want less illegals in here. But they wont do that...too much logic in that lets just pass a national ID ... any well minded 4th grader not brainwashed by socialist schools would come to conclusion of border security so why not congress. I got the distinct impression it was illegals they were combatting with this bill and not terrorists.
You have a database identifier for EVERY transaction you do- what would be so bad about having one number that you could use everywhere?
I am for it
If my bank uses 123 as my number and my credit card uses 456 what difference does it make if they BOTH switch to 8910
Just because I know your number does not mean I can invade your privacy- you need ACCESS into the database- and you wont have any more access than you have to my bank right now. (Yes, I know it happens- but theft happens on the street too- it is the EXCEPTION not the rule)
And the 'mark of the beast' is only if they start implainting it.
But now, they get more from the same amount of theft.
Verichip everyone and be done with it.
Hillary would have had access.
She would have used it as her own personal campaign finance database.
It was scary enough that she got her hands on 900+ FBI files.
I'm not sure that's English, but what is it that she has?
He was complaining that hilLIARy would have access if we had a national ID.
It is just a number. HilLIARy should have gone to jail for the last 900 FBI files and that didnt have an ID number
The biggest problem is that it increases the propensity for harassment while decreasing security. For example, the nomenklatura may decide to set up checkpoints at state borders, or county lines, or city limits. Maybe, one would have to swipe the card to check into motel or withdraw money from a bank or buy a gun or ammunition or allergy medicine. The cost of compliance is real.
The gain in security is vacuous. Two obvious problems arise. First, the card becomes the person; steal (counterfeit, etc.) the card, and become the creature. Second, as the system must accomodate undercover narks (and CIA and FBI and IRS agents), false IDs will obtain from the beginning. This provides an easy entry point.
When technology reaches the point where we can have a reliable biometric ID system, which is tied to an easily accessible database containing limited info (just enough to actually tell people apart), and which therefore wouldn't require carrying any cards, or provide the opportunity for forged cards to be used, then I want it immediately. Because until we have that, my vote is being diluted by all sorts of fraudulent votes from illegal aliens and multiple-vote casters, and my economy is being trashed by endless illegal alien workers and endless scam artists, and my security is being compromised by all sorts of dangerous unidentifiable people (terrorists, violent criminals, etc.) living in our midst and interacting with us and our families. I don't need freedom from being identified badly enough to give up my vote, my financial freedom, and my physical freedom.
"There are other reasons to dislike the Real ID act. It explicitly places the burden of proof on people applying for asylum status. "There is no presumption of credibility," the bill reads. The immigration official deciding a case can ask for evidence, and if a person can't get evidence because it lies outside the U.S., "the inability to obtain corroborating evidence does not excuse the applicant from meeting the applicant's burden of proof." And the bill limits judicial review of immigration decisions."
The immigration issue yet again! And the writer views the fact that national IDs will mitigate immigration as a problem!
Can someone please explain to me why it is incumbent on the US and the American people to somehow accept and pay for every immigrant from every corner of the globe that wants to come here to escape their private hell-holes created by their own people in their own backwater countries? And this bulls**t idea is touted like its some sort of article of faith enshrined in the Constitution! It's not! If implementing national IDs puts a stop to the unending flood of wetbacks and stowaways, in the multi-millions, that continue to steal their way into this country, then I say, let's do it!
Actually, the forehead/hand reference from the Torah is sometimes literal and sometimes figurative. If the commandments are only bound in one's tefillin (phylacteries), then one hasn't followed Torah at all. So, most of the mark of the beast is in whose commands one obeys, not in the technology which one wears or implants.
So, with laws like this, a substantial portion of the camel is under the tent!
All the numbers start with 616!~}
The problem is that it is easy to duplicate or steal and they are hard to verify.
That is going to be the same if we create another "card". Adding more red tape is not the answer.
That will be the case no matter WHAT kind of feel good "card" they issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.