We need a national ID without a national registry. The simplest (from a legal perspective) might be a national clearinghouse that polls states' registries.
What is the distinction between a state registry and a national registry? Besides the ever popular fallback to a founding document, is there any real difference in implementation if it's done either way?
I'd say a big difference would be some system where there is no central registry at all vs. a system where one does exist. But a pseudo-central vs. central system hardly seems like a different solution.
Perhaps one benefit of a segmented or partitioned system is that it can be 'disconnected', but that would also mean that if you need to interact with anything non-local that is now also not possible. And the other way around it would do the same thing (i.e. "depeering" a partition) where you wouldn't be able to verify any identity within that partition.
> What is the distinction between a state registry and a national registry?
The difference between centralisation and decentralisation. States can fight back against the federal government's requests in a way that is simply not feasible for almost any person.
> a pseudo-central vs. central system hardly seems like a different solution
Under this model, the e.g. TSA wouldn't be allowed to keep a copy of your ID. It would have to poll for it anew each time.
Looping back to the above: the TSA making this promise to us is almost meaningless. The TSA making this promise to the states could create real problems for it if it were found to be breaking the law.
> that would also mean that if you need to interact with anything non-local that is now also not possible
> The difference between centralisation and decentralisation. States can fight back against the federal government's requests in a way that is simply not feasible for almost any person.
I don't understand this idea. Usually there is more variance in the behavior of lower-level governments, while higher-level governments will be closer to the mean. If there is a real risk that the federal government will abuse its power in a certain way, many state governments must already be abusing their powers that way. And the same also holds between state governments and local governments.
The smaller the administrated population, the more likely the government is either really great or really bad. But because the government can more easily do harm than good, lower-level governments are worse on the average.
It can be argued that while the average state/local government is worse than the federal government, your government is special. But that is only plausible if there are persistent cultural differences between your area and the rest of the country. And I don't mean differences in political opinion but in things like corruption and respect to the rule of law. That could happen if there is little immigration from other areas to your area, or if immigrants must live there for a long time and prove that they fit in before they gain full rights.
Which is why the sanest level of government is usually the one corresponding to citizenship.
> many state governments must already be abusing their powers that way
The point is in shattering that power. If it's all at the federal level, there is nobody who can realistically check its mis-use. While at the state level, mis-use will be (a) contained and (b) checkable.
I’m a fan of Americas federal system because of the dual level. The federal level helps ensure a certain level of protection from local corruption or ineptitude while the state level prevents the federal level from too much easy power. Well in theory, the federal level has garnered way too much power IMHO.
> Why are Americans so against a national registry? What are the actual arguments against it?
For better or for worse, Americans have a strong distrust of government in our civic DNA - the more centralized, the more distrust. The very design of our country's government is intended to distribute power as much as feasible, while doing only the bare minimum of activities at a national level. This design has been eroded over time (the 20th century in particular did a huge number on it), but many Americans still hold that vision dear. Thus, any proposal of "let's do a centralized X" is automatically controversial in the US in a way which it simply would never be in many other countries.
> Pretty every other developed country has one.
This sort of argument is not a good reason for anyone to do anything, but it's especially not a good reason for countries to base their national policies on.
The core part of it: the US has much more vocal extremes in all directions, and they want to carve out niches where they can apply their own rules.
That's where you see states that ban abortion and force religious views into education for instance, to take one extreme, and they sure don't want a ruling entity to tell them they can't do so. Same applies to any subject, including identifying people (I'm pretty sure there's a sizeable number of people who don't want any official ID at all, even limited to their town, under no circumstance)
Basically, where some countries/federations will strive for unity and common values, the US keeps an idea of letting extremes run around in their own pockets of land and sometimes sit in the country's driver seat.
> Basically, where some countries/federations will strive for unity and common values, the US keeps an idea of letting extremes run around in their own pockets of land and sometimes sit in the country's driver seat.
That's close but not quite right. The idea is that by solving matters as locally as possible, it lets people with strongly held opinions on the government coexist more easily. One person thinks abortion is a fundamental right everyone should have, another thinks it's tantamount to murder and a moral abomination. Neither is budging, so instead of having half the country at each others' throats as they try to force their views on everyone, it can be better to let them solve these issues locally. Then we have a better chance at getting along as a whole, because we can each find a community where our values are upheld and "live and let live".
That's the idea, at any rate. There are various flaws we see in practice, and perhaps the idea is untenable in this day and age. But it's fundamentally an attempt to gain unity where otherwise there would only be division. And of course it's also tied to a strong cultural mistrust of government (especially centralized government), as I mentioned in my other post.
The government will know about your assault gun purchases and possibly hamper your ability to overthrow the government is the main argument. It's usually packaged as State's rights to also make it seem like the civil war was justified among other things.
> It's usually packaged as State's rights to also make it seem like the civil war was justified among other things.
States' rights are a concept that people value for its own sake, and are not automatically an attempt "to make it seem like the civil war was justified".
I don’t think there’s any advantage to that. Also, how do you deal with immigrants who weren’t even born in any state? Or are you relying that state records track people as they move? That seems unwise given how bad states are at maintaining those records / people tend to often not update the state about moving. Or do you have a national registry for immigrants and a statewide for those those born within the US? Oh and how do you deal with children of soldiers who aren’t actually necessarily living in a state?
It’s much simpler to eat the cost of a national registry and avoid all sorts of logistical challenges of coordinating across 50 States’ and 5 territories IT systems and disparate standards on record keeping.
Depends on the country, I think. Usually, if you move to another country, you have to register there so each country knows who is a foreigner. This is also tracked for taxes and social security, and for elections.
For elections they need to keep track of each person’s status: EU citizens might be able to vote in local election in another EU country, but not national ones, so they have to record this type of information.
These three things are different: you can live in a country, pay taxes in another, and vote in a third. I guess states are just good at keeping records.
Not the EU, but in Switzerland, you need to be registered in the place you live primarily. If you move to a different town, you have two weeks to deregister at the old one and re-register at the new.
To prove you live, you would do it the same way as in the US/UK if I understand correctly, with whatever evidence you have. Rental contract in your name, utility bill, property deed, ... If you live with your parents and don't have anything in your name, they need to write a signed attestation you live there. And so on. It's not uncommon for the police to knock on your door and check if you actually live where you claim to if they have a doubt.
Also in the Czech Republic, and registering a new address requires the issuance of a new mandatory ID card, which is a paid 'service' (unsure how this meets any definition of 'service', but I digress). The last time I needed to do this in the CR, I had to get a notarised copy of my rental contract. They didn't care one jot about the accuracy of rental contract - I could have mocked one up in Word if I wanted to - they just cared that I had the copy notarised. Which required stamps and payment, naturally, because it's Europe.
It's an absurd system. Why should you need to prove to the government you live anywhere? How much money is wasted sending policemen to knock on doors? And how does your absence at a given random moment prove anything at all about where you reside?
Locals are generally surprised, in my experience, when I tell them that Australia has no system of registered permanent abode at all. If you have a driver's licence, and you move, you probably want to update your address with the motor bureau, which you generally do online with no documentation at all. No one verifies your new address or particularly cares about it, because the only thing it affects is where you get sent mail (it has no legal consequences like council tax, as it does in the CR, etc). Other than that it's your business what address you give where. No one will ever demand you prove your 'registered address of permanent abode' because no such thing exists.
It fits into a broader pattern where everyone in Europe must have some kind of 'status' recorded. What's your registered place of permanent abode? What's your status with the mandatory state health insurance? For tax purposes, are you 'employed' or 'self-employed' or 'student' or 'retired'? Are you registered for self-employment with the social security bureau? There's generally no grey areas, and if you somehow fall outside the norm, they truly don't know what to do with you.
You have not experienced Europe until you've had a civil servant glower at you because there's no drop down box for what you're telling them, and this is very much something they want you to know is your fault. Can't you just be normal?
In Switzerland it's mostly about taxes, the tax rates change based on the canton and town, often widely so. It's also about voting rights, but it's much less a concern.
I think in countries where the majority of tax receipts come from income tax, they care a lot more about where you live than in countries like the US (and Australia apparently?) where they rely more in property taxes.
We need a national ID without a national registry. The simplest (from a legal perspective) might be a national clearinghouse that polls states' registries.