> A national database linking all driver’s licenses would effectively impose something alien to our system of civil liberties: a national ID card.
This whole premise is a bit bizarre. We have national databases. We have the IRS’s tax database, social security, and Medicare. We have the selective service database. We have whatever database CBP uses to track anyone who has ever been known to cross a border.
We also have the databases operated by Experian and its competitors, which are worse, because they give out data to basically anyone and are accountable to no one. And they violate people’s’ civil liberties in egregious ways that the government would have trouble getting away with.
Frankly, an actual well-managed national ID database seems like an improvement in all respects. Of course, Real ID is no such thing.
USA unlike any other first world (or even second world) country doesn't have national ID.
England, and I believe the whole of the UK, hasn't had a national ID card since 2011, two years after they were introduced in an opt-in basis. Mostly it's commonwealth countries that don't have ID cards (Australia, Bahamas, Canada, New Zealand). However, Japan's in the kinda but not really category.
Corporate power is used for political purposes. Making money is just a nice to have. The intelligence value of the data these private international companies are allowed to collect on American citizens is unfathomable.
> “The day would not be far off,” wrote cybersecurity and surveillance expert Jim Harper, a former congressional committee counsel and senior fellow at the Cato Institute, “when a national ID is required for picking up prescriptions, purchasing guns and ammunition, paying by credit card, booking air travel, and reserving hotel stays, to name just a few types of transactions the federal government might regulate.” Again: That may be normal in some societies, but it cuts sharply against the grain in ours.
I’m not sure I fully understand the argument here. This is normal in US society. I cannot pickup prescriptions, travel, stay in a hotel, etc without a legitimate ID.
The argument appears to be that an ID issues by a state government is ok, but if it’s issued by the federal government that’s somehow, philosophically an overreach of power.
There are very good arguments against RealID. But the argument that it’s somehow fundamentally any different from what the US does today does not seem right at all.
I have never been asked for an ID to pick up prescriptions. Name, date of birth, and once address. But never an ID.
I’ve traveled across the US without having to show an ID for anything.
I have usually needed to show an ID to stay at a hotel, but not an Airbnb(or did I have to upload it at some point? I can’t remember now), or some rental condos. (Diamond for example doesn’t always ask for one).
It's not just a question of controlled medicines. There's also the question of insurance fraud. Some pharmacies (or insurance companies?) want to make sure that, if the J. Doe's insurance is paying for it, it's actually going to J. Doe.
It depends on if they’re scheduled medications, and at what level. You’re not picking up either my testosterone or stimulant prescriptions without an ID.
That’s in Minnesota at least, and I’m guessing they’re state level laws.
You got me curious as to which states require ID to pick up prescription narcotics as I've never heard of this living in Illinois and Colorado. Turns out each state has its own set of unique and sometimes bizarre rules:
>The argument appears to be that an ID issues by a state government is ok, but if it’s issued by the federal government that’s somehow, philosophically an overreach of power.
That is easy. The federal government is only allowed to do what is granted to it in the Constitution (enumerated powers). IDs are never mentioned so the federal government doesn't have the authority.
I think this is already the case (at least in California) - I ended up biting the bullet so to speak and getting a realid because otherwise I'd need to bring my passport with me on every trip to buy ammunition (since unreal drivers licenses aren't acceptable any more)
I like the attempt to scare the reader by pointing out the barcode is unencrypted and anybody with an simple scanner could get it. But if they're holding your ID I'm pretty sure they can already read all of that same info printed on the front of the card.
As someone who had to work countless, sleepless nights and weekends in a crazy push to get a REAL ID solution implemented it really annoys me that they extended the deadline.
I've long since left that company but there were multiple pushes like that where we were trying to get a state compliant before the previous deadlines.
First, I understand your pain. I once worked on a team building a product for a multi billion silicon valley company only to have to project cancelled on the very evening before launch.
It sucked and I felt cheated. It took a long time for me to realize that I had been paid to do what I did and they choose to throw the work away, but it was theirs to discard.
With respect to Real ID, it is a stupid program and should be scrapped. It is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to stick a scarlet letter on immigrants.
Here's the thing though, every legal immigrant and likely many illegal immigrants already have documents like green cards and passports they can use rather to fly.
In the end, this program places the overwhelming burden on US citizens who dont already have a passport (the poorest 66% of us), doing very little to actually make air travel safer.
RealID is the expensive side asymmetric response to an imagined problem that we cant possibly spend our way out of. In fact, throwing money away like this is exactly what the bad guys want.
> It is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to stick a scarlet letter on immigrants.
I completely disagree, otherwise I wouldn't have worked on the program at all.
> every legal immigrant and likely many illegal immigrants already have documents like green cards and passports they can use rather to fly.
This is true, legal immigrants can still fly. It does add more friction to some illegal immigrants and I don't think that's a bad thing.
It also helps prevent identity theft and sets a bare minimum for states handing out identity-proving documents. I've been in DMVs when the new system caught fake documents and fake licenses that would not have been caught before (having worked on both the REAL ID and non-REAL ID systems.)
> In the end, this program places the overwhelming burden on US citizens who don't already have a passport (the poorest 66% of us)
I don't think the requirements for obtaining a REAL ID are overwhelming for legal citizens and immigrants. Also, keep in mind it is the state that sets the price of a REAL ID card. The federal government even gave grants to many (all?) states and territories to implement the program.
> doing very little to actually make air travel safer.
I agree with this. I don't think it particularly improves the security or safety of flights either and wish the whole program was decoupled from flying. There are real improvements to the security of DMV's systems and their vetting processes. Especially for some states/territories that were handing out ID's and licenses like candy. Though in a whole the program has been a mess as can be seen with the numerous extensions.
Boarding a plane before 9/11 was much easier, and I'm not necessarily convinced that TSA, DHS, or REAL ID have a security impact on flying relative to their cost and burden on citizens. I think there is a lot of incompetence and unnecessary expenses there. So we're in agreement on that.
I think the security screening (I might even call it mild molestation) required to board a flight should trump any need for any identity document. I don't think REAL ID's goals should be co-mingled with flying.
I'd also agree that a driver's license shouldn't be an identity document either. But unfortunately at some point in history it was decided that a DL should be an identity document too so unfortunately it's wrapped up with everything else.
There are not just REAL ID licenses either, there are REAL ID IDs too, just for identity.
> I don't think the requirements for obtaining a REAL ID are overwhelming for legal citizens and immigrants.
Maybe the computer systems are well-thought out and efficient, but what you're missing is that DMVs are terribly time-wasting, and nobody wants to go to one until it's absolutely necessary. Until the federal government makes it a priority to clean up customer-facing bureaucracies at all levels of government they interact with, these sorts of migrations will remain quagmires.
> Maybe the computer systems are well-thought out and efficient
They're not. Far from it. Not the systems implemented for the states, and not the systems implemented by the federal government. At the end of the day it is enterprise software written to specs created by state and federal government. In most cases the new system has improvements over the previous one (better UI, more secure), but that's just because the federal government helped pay the bill for a shiny new system.
> what you're missing is that DMVs are terribly time-wasting, and nobody wants to go to one until it's absolutely necessary
That's a fair point. When a state/territory switches over to a new REAL ID system there is definitely a significant increase in per-customer processing time. After a few weeks the staff is better equipped and a lot of the software issues have been ironed out and they get faster but it may always take a bit more time than before. I've seen cases where a customer had to come back multiple times over the course of a week (due to no fault of their own) to get their license and I've seen cases where they are in and out in a few minutes with license in hand (some states print at their offices, some do factory printing and mail out.)
> Until the federal government makes it a priority to clean up customer-facing bureaucracies at all levels of government they interact with, these sorts of migrations will remain quagmires.
The customer-facing side is the state/territory-run DMVs though. The states have to collect a bit more information to comply with REAL ID but they have nearly all the control over the customer experience. Maybe the federal government could withhold funds for future updates to the systems if states don't meet some criteria for fast processing and better customer service but I won't hold my breath (though that would be great.)
Sure, right up until it's implemented and immediately becomes the only form of acceptable ID for voter registration. Or, they require the new ID, AND your old state ID AND your birth certificate AND solid proof of address.
Then it becomes voter suppression, and it happens entirely too frequently here.
Does the US need a national ID system? Yes, definitely. But it needs to be implemented carefully to not fuck over the citizens, and our government doesn't understand how to not be a festering sack of dicks so it's not likely to happen soon.
It's about suppressing votes of marginalized citizens who have limited access to government bureaucratic procedures due to time, location, language, or other constraints, many of which have been constructed deliberately or with knowing negligence.
This is a neat narrative, but there are tens of thousands of DMV locations all over the country. Appointments can be booked ahead of time to minimize time impact. It only needs to be done once every few years. Documentation is available in English and Spanish. That being said, to participate in civics in the U.S. you need to know some English. It's part of the citizenship test, and the laws are written in English.
The reality is that ID card holding rates correlate with race, income, and age[1][2][3] in a way that those advocating for ID requirements benefit from. When the consequences of such a system result in race, age, and income disparities, the purpose of such a system is, functionally, to disenfranchise on race, age, and income.
The fact is that there are millions[4] more, black, brown, hispanic, young, and poor people without than there are white, old, and rich people. Claiming that people can get IDs is a far step from realizing the logistical implications of such a claim. And why would someone? The point is that they won't, that in elections where tens or hundreds of thousands of votes decide the outcome, millions of people won't be able to vote and their inability will be individualized and trivialized into, "If it was important for them to vote, then they would have gotten IDs," while disavowing the discussion we're having right now - the one where the consequences of such system-building is being laid out.
It sounds like what you want to say is that you think it's more fair that people with IDs should play a greater role in elections than those who don't because they have more skin in the game, they've done more things right, and they contribute more to society, but you know that isn't exactly ok to say.
why is it that, in discussions like these, nobody ever wants to try to solve any able-to-get-ID disparities that may or may not exist, instead choosing to always assume it's an inherent, intractable issue?
I can see how it looks that way. What I see, rather, is that the costs of voter fraud prevention are much less than the cost of getting everyone an ID.
A shortcut to determine if this is really about ID or not is exploring the hypothetical, "Would voter ID proponents be satiated if IDs were instantly printable at polling stations provided the requirements for ID were the same?"
Instead it appears as though voter-ID proponents tend to weigh voter fraud much more than voter suppression: ie: it's much much worse if one person fraudulently votes than if one person is disenfranchised. Or in other words, the purity and sanctity of elections is tainted by a single fraudulent vote but not a single disenfranchisement.
1. Definitely open to being better informed on this. Please set me straight if this isn't the case.
If you go look up past debates over the issue, you'll find that people have proposed solutions to that problem, only to have some politicians not be willing to pay for those solutions.
There have also been support for widening kinds of proof of identity allowed, and again there are politicians who are against that.
There had previously been debate over a free and easy-to-get national ID, but usually the pushback on that comes from people not wanting to feel tracked by the government.
I have to wonder if that would have more support today than in the past because of the amount of surveillance happening by private companies.
Because it's a red herring, feel good but not very logical argument meant to shut down discussion. Doesn't matter that you need an id to work, to fly, to buy cigarettes, etc. No one is arguing that the TSA is racist for requiring id to fly.
> In the event you arrive at the airport without valid identification, because it is lost or at home, you may still be allowed to fly. The TSA officer may ask you to complete an identity verification process which includes collecting information such as your name, current address, and other personal information to confirm your identity. If your identity is confirmed, you will be allowed to enter the screening checkpoint. You will be subject to additional screening, to include a patdown and screening of carry-on property.
You will not be allowed to enter the security checkpoint if your identity cannot be confirmed, you choose to not provide proper identification or you decline to cooperate with the identity verification process.
^ From your TSA link above. You mightpossibly be able to fly if they can validate your identity by other means, which basically involves cross-referencing your existing identity documentation in their database. Otherwise, you can't fly.
You don't seem to be considering a variety of important factors here:
- Unhoused individuals who have the right to vote are unable to afford to pay for ID
- Contrary to what you're saying, in some places it's multiple hours drive to find a DMV that's open on a weekend (which might be required for someone working a 9-5 job)
- Even if you can go on a weekday, in some places you have to go across multiple counties to get to a DMV. If you don't have a car and need to take a bus, that can mean spending most of the day on the bus to get to the DMV, which may mean you cannot get back home the same day. This is a reality for some people, and those people won't necessarily be able to rely on a friend to drive them (see the above about people working 9-5), and don't have money to spend on a Taxi/Uber/Lyft.
- Some people lack documentation required to get a state ID or driver's license. This can happen for a variety of reasons, but previous homelessness is one. It can be expensive and time consuming to fix that issue in some cases.
Thus far I've not seen any politician pushing for strict voter ID laws also willing to fund ensuring that everyone who is entitled to vote is provided with a proper ID if needed, and until that changes you're going to see people pushing back on those laws.
> Unhoused individuals who have the right to vote are unable to afford to pay for ID
It sounds like you should be arguing for free IDs for the homeless. That being said, I spent $12 on my most recent visit to the DMV to get a new license. It is not an expensive endeavor. This is not an argument against voter ids.
> Contrary to what you're saying, in some places it's multiple hours drive to find a DMV that's open on a weekend (which might be required for someone working a 9-5 job)
You can go to the DMV on your lunch break. You can also let your employer know you need a new id and they will let you go. People regularly take brief moments and breaks off work to tend to chores, children, doctor appointments, etc. This is a really bad argument.
Actually, to even be legally employed with a e-verify, you need an ID to prove your status.
Again, a poor argument.
> Some people lack documentation required to get a state ID or driver's license. This can happen for a variety of reasons, but previous homelessness is one. It can be expensive and time consuming to fix that issue in some cases.
There are programs to assist the homeless with this very thing. The homeless are < 0.1% of the population. It's great to be thinking about them. Programs should exist. But you can't possibly argue that such exceptions are an argument against voter id. The opportunity for abuse and manipulation in the absence of id is too great. Everyone is disenfranchised when voting rules are lax and ID is not verified.
> It sounds like you should be arguing for free IDs for the homeless.
I'd absolutely be in support of that, and not just the homeless.
People have proposed this in the past, and somehow some politicians don't want to pay for it.
> That being said, I spent $12 on my most recent visit to the DMV to get a new license. It is not an expensive endeavor.
Do you understand how many people have to choose between food or medical care each month, and barely make rent? You might not think $12 plus the cost of transportation, plus potentially unpaid time off work, costs much, but it's a lot to some people.
> You can go to the DMV on your lunch break.
Again, not everyone is 10 minutes from a DMV. In some parts of the country you're not going to find a DMV in the same county. Many people have 30-60 minute lunch breaks with no flexibility. Many people have no paid vacation days.
There's a reason that courts have regularly thrown out voter ID laws, and it's because they disproportionately disenfranchise the poor.
> There are programs to assist the homeless with this very thing. The homeless are < 0.1% of the population. It's great to be thinking about them. Programs should exist. But you can't possibly argue that such exceptions are an argument against voter id.
It's not just homeless. It's also the poor.
And it turns out the courts have continuously tossed voter ID laws because of the disproportionate effect on those communities. So whether you think it's a good argument or not, federal courts across the country do.
> Everyone is disenfranchised when voting rules are lax and ID is not verified.
I'm not sure where you're getting your information from, but time and time again people claiming widespread voter fraud have been unable to find actual evidence of it. Multiple Republican governors over the years have put together committees to find the evidence, and although they usually find a handful of cases of people voting illegally, these are sometimes people who didn't realize they couldn't vote (e.g. convicted felons who have not gone through their state's process to regain voting rights), or people who vote someone else's ballot (frequently a recently deceased parent). A dozen people (voting for both parties, BTW, not one or the other) voting illegally should have their votes removed from the tallies, but disenfranchising millions of poor people should not be the cost of doing that.
To paraphrase you, "This is not an argument for voter IDs."
It's not about non-citizens, as they generally don't have the right to vote in federal elections simply because they are not citizens.
It's about disenfranchising poor and non-white people. In the Jim Crow era they used reading tests or guessing the number of buttons in a jar, now they're implementing strict ID requirements that are expensive or time consuming to meet.
I'm no expert on this topic, but the general gist is that poor people generally have a harder time getting free time off work when the county clerk is open, transport is often difficult because there are only so many locations, and the documents themselves can be expensive. If you don't have all the supporting documentation they require, you can't get the ID card even if you have other legal identification.
The goal is to make it much more difficult to vote so that people trapped in poverty can't afford the time or cost to get the papers required to vote.
Making it harder to vote causes overall voter numbers to drop. Less-polarized people will tend to be apathetic and think voting isn't worth the extra effort, while polarized fox News nuts will do anything they can to vote out the other guy.
Which is all to say our electoral system is broken, first past the post voting is objectively bad, and we desperately need broad voting reform to eliminate the two party system. I doubt it'll happen in my lifetime though.
I'm not really convinced doing something about illegal immigrants is a step towards a police state. Is this US only rhetoric? Do other countries regularly just allow people to immigrate illegaly and are not interested in doing anything about it? Like I can't imagine just boating to some random coast in Norway and expect to just live a new life there unimpeded by the law.
What is wrong with that? By what natural law is moving across cities at will OK, but moving across borders not OK? Legal restriction of movement across borders makes no sense.
I mean, wherever you are, you should follow the law. If I'm a criminal, I should be dealt with wherever I find myself. If I don't commit crimes, I should be free to live where I want to live, provided I pay taxes and can pay to stay there.
The same reason I can't just walk into your house and make myself lunch out of your fridge. The people of this country have the same right as the owner of a house to control who can come in and to ask for some requirements as to do so. If you want to loosen the requirements, feel free to get a majority of the owners of the country (we, the people) to agree.
This is a false a equivalence. Immigrants do not not use private resources that belong personally to citizens. They consume public resources, paid for by taxes. So long as they also pay taxes, they are entitled to the use of those resources.
Your house belongs to you. The earth, or portions thereof, does not exclusively belong to a group of people just because they happened to live there currently.
In any case, in many of these countries ( including the US) where people are rabidly advocating for curbs on movement, the majority of the population brutally displaced people who had lived there for thousands of years. By your own logic they have been breaking the law for a long time.
How many illegal immigrants have their passports and are willing to risk flying with them? I'm more talking about the mindset of illegally entering a country and then having the expectation that I can do anything there, anyway. Like in my Norway example, I can't imagine just walking to an airport and expecting everything to work out when I just boated into a random part of the country illegally. Is this a US idea that that should be expected to work? I don't have the perspective to know, so I'm asking.
Living in the Netherlands, I haven't had to show ID to any government agent when flying to another country in the Schengen area in at least ten years (and I fly quite often). If I don't check in online then I am sometime asked to show it at check-in. And sometimes I have to show it at the gate, but the people there are only eyeballing it to make sure the name matches the boarding pass.
Note that I do often have to show ID on the return flight. Each country (and probably airport) has its own procedures.
This whole premise is a bit bizarre. We have national databases. We have the IRS’s tax database, social security, and Medicare. We have the selective service database. We have whatever database CBP uses to track anyone who has ever been known to cross a border.
We also have the databases operated by Experian and its competitors, which are worse, because they give out data to basically anyone and are accountable to no one. And they violate people’s’ civil liberties in egregious ways that the government would have trouble getting away with.
Frankly, an actual well-managed national ID database seems like an improvement in all respects. Of course, Real ID is no such thing.