Free Markets, Free People

Ah, bi-partisanship: Graham and Schumer want to solve the immigration problem with a national I.D

Lindsey Graham, fresh off his bi-partisan attempt to sell cap-and-trade lite is now engaged with Chuck Schumer in trying to establish a need for a national ID.

In a Washington Post op/ed, they lay out their plan for immigration reform. In all honesty not all of it is bad. And if they stopped there (and added something about anchor babies), it might be a plan most could get behind. But then they throw this in the mix:

Besides border security, ending illegal immigration will also require an effective employment verification system that holds employers accountable for hiring illegal workers. A tamper-proof ID system would dramatically decrease illegal immigration, experts have said, and would reduce the government revenue lost when employers and workers here illegally fail to pay taxes.

We would require all U.S. citizens and legal immigrants who want jobs to obtain a high-tech, fraud-proof Social Security card. Each card’s unique biometric identifier would be stored only on the card; no government database would house everyone’s information. The cards would not contain any private information, medical information or tracking devices. The card would be a high-tech version of the Social Security card that citizens already have.

Prospective employers would be responsible for swiping the cards through a machine to confirm a person’s identity and immigration status. Employers who refused to swipe the card or who otherwise knowingly hired unauthorized workers would face stiff fines and, for repeat offenses, prison sentences.

What were you told about your Social Security card? It’s not an ID card and it would never, ever be used as a means of identification – correct?  This proposal goes completely against that promise about the card.

Secondly – read the middle paragraph about the storage of your biometric info.  Biometric information is by definition “private information”.  It is unique only to you.  Additionally, what good does it do on a card if there isn’t some way to verify it?  And unless that information exists at another site, what are you swiping the card to do?  Where is the swiped card’s information going and what is verifying it as “ok”? 

So again read it carefully – “no government data base would house everyone’s information”.  Translation: multiple government data bases would house parts of all your information.  Bottom line – the government would have your biometic info on file in their databases.

Uh, no. 

Enforce the borders, streamline the immigration process to make it work better and quicker, work out a method to bring in seasonal workers, offer an arduous path to citizenship to illegals that involves taxes, fines and learning english and deal with the anchor baby problem.

But come up with a method of verifying citizenship that doesn’t involve my biometric info or a national ID because I am not the problem and I’m not going to become a party to handing my private biometric info over to government or carrying a national ID. 

Got that Mr. Graham (I know better than to bother addressing Schumer)?

~McQ

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

14 Responses to Ah, bi-partisanship: Graham and Schumer want to solve the immigration problem with a national I.D

  • Instead of a card, perhaps they could just tatoo an ID number and other useful identifying symbols onto our forearms.

    Why is it that, lately, whenever I read about what the Congress is up to, I feel like going to the hardware store for a pitchfork, tar, and a rope?

    • Yeah.  The “mark of the Anti-Christ”.   That will go over real big.
      I suggest the “death penalty” for forger of the National ID card, which will be required to vote.

      • Well, I had in mind something like the letters and symbols used by the nazis at Auschwitz…

  • Or we can trash our economy so badly that no one would want to come here.

  • Why does this dialogue from the “Hunt for Red October” come to mind …

    Capt. Vasili Borodin: I will live in Montana. And I will marry a round American woman and raise rabbits, and she will cook them for me. And I will have a pickup truck… maybe even a “recreational vehicle.” And drive from state to state. Do they let you do that?
    Captain Ramius: I suppose.
    Capt. Vasili Borodin: No papers?
    Captain Ramius: No papers, state to state.

  • The biometric data on the card could be stored in a manner that would allow:
    1) The person with the card to prove it’s their data on the card
    2) The entity verifying the card to prove the data on the card has been matched to the “real” person the card is for by a trusted 3rd party in the past.

    Not that I for a second think government would get it right, but it’s not impossible to not store the biometric data on only the card.

    • Yes but what good is it if you can forge the information onto a fake card to matches you but uses someone else’s name.

  • So again read it carefully – “no government data base would house everyone’s information”.  Translation: multiple government data bases would house parts of all your information. Bottom line – the government would have your biometic info on file in their databases.

    I think the first means of disproving the claim is the following question: If my information isn’t stored on a central Database, how are you going to put it on my card?

  • Papiere, bitte

  • You can already implant a chip in your dog for identification purposes. Why not implant chips into newborns with identification data, including your citizen number, etc.? Maybe even a transponder so that your location can always be checked, only to catch kidnappers of course. It certainly wouldn’t hurt more than circumcision.