It’s depressing to think about. Federalism is now just a political tactic. Congress, numerous executive departments, and federal courts routinely dictate required activities to the States. In that regard, this legislation would be no different.
States can still choose not to follow federal mandates, in which case the federal government has little recourse, except cutting off funding. Unfortunately, that has become a very powerful recourse that usually compels compliance.
If federalism is de facto non-existent whenever Congress chooses to act, and an ID requirement is deemed mandatory, then this law is logical. For believers in limited government, it’s one more nail in the coffin. |
| |
Written By:
pilsener
URL:
http://
|
|
What happened to the Republicans that were elected in 1994 whose rallying cry was, "No Unfunded Federal Mandates?" |
| |
Written By:
Ogre
URL:
http://www.ogresview.blogspot.com
|
Immigration and naturalization are subjects within Congress’ granted Constitutional powers (See Art. I, Sect. 8, Cl. 4). Preventing the States from issuing driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, which is tantamount to a naturalization policy, is a perfectly reasonable (and, I think, desirable) exercise of Congressional authority. Whether or not Congress can force State employees to identify a license candidate’s citizenship status may be an issue, but there is no doubt that Congress can prohibit the legal issuance of such licenses.
Aside from those legal issues, I’m not in any hurry to see a National ID. It’s one thing to set a national format for licenses, or to set a national standard for who may legitemately hold a license. But it is a whole ’nother kettle of stinkin’ fish to make a National ID mandatory. As a means of security, a National ID would pretty ineffectual unless is could be demanded at any time for any reason ("Vhere are your paperz!?"). That alone is a scary enough reason to forego the measure. However, IMHO, restricting licenses to actual legal residents of the U.S. does not begin to approach the level of a mandatory National ID. |
| |
Written By:
MichaelW
URL:
http://
|
|
The alternative, of course, is not to use a driver’s license as proof of anything other than "I am licensed to drive a car according to state X.". Proof of citizenship of a state would require different documentation, which leads us back to the liberty problem. |
| |
Written By:
Mark Flacy
URL:
http://
|
If the state drivers licenses are considered a valid ID on the national stage, then I have no problem with the feds issuing guidelines regarding the issuance of the licenses.
Of couse, as stated above, the way to avoid the issue is to make a drivers license just that, and issue a national ID. |
| |
Written By:
shark
URL:
http://
|
|
There comes a point for every libertarian-minded federalist when you have to look at the practicality of your views. Ideally, it would be best for the states to restrict the issuance of drivers licenses to persons properly in the country; but when some states refuse to do so, federal action is required. It only takes one rogue state to endanger the entire country. Although I am loathe to argue the point, we can use the broad interpretation of the commerce clause that the courts have saddled us with against such rogue states. Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce, which could logically be extended to the issuance of drivers licenses that permit the licensee to travel interstate, as all state drivers’ licenses do. |
| |
Written By:
KDL
URL:
http://
|
|
I’m a bit ignorant about the libertarian fear of National ID cards. What is the potential loss of liberty from something that would be used similarly to a passport or driver’s license? |
| |
Written By:
JWG
URL:
http://
|
I’m a bit ignorant about the libertarian fear of National ID cards. What is the potential loss of liberty from something that would be used similarly to a passport or driver’s license? I can’t speak for anyone but me, but it is the potential "mandatory" nature of such an idea that gives me the creeps. |
| |
Written By:
MichaelW
URL:
http://
|
the potential "mandatory" nature of such an idea...gives me the creeps I was assuming that it would only be mandatory if you needed to prove you were a citizen (we already need a SS# to work, a passport to travel to another country, etc.). |
| |
Written By:
JWG
URL:
http://
|
|
What is the fuss. We have national ID with social security. Are we really talking about having to demonstrate illegals shouldn’t have driver’s licenses? |
| |
Written By:
TJ Jackson
URL:
http://
|
Ihre papiere, bitte! (Gestapo for Your Papers Please)
Those words I pray we never hear in the USA. No more creeping Federal government.
We need to enact build down legislation like Sam Nunn proposed in dealing with nukes. For every new law congress passes, they must revoke two others. There is enough junk and special interest legislation on the books that it might not make a dent for a long time, but we should start it anyway. |
| |
Written By:
Abuqaqa
URL:
http://
|
|
I would hope the states would have figured this out for themselves by now. |
| |
Written By:
Jason Newcomb
URL:
http://closedanger.blogspot.com
|
Although the final form of the legislation has not been written yet, my understanding is that it doesn’t require the States to do anything. Rather, it states that a DL will not be considered valid ID for Federal purposes unless the state complies with the Federal standards for issuance of valid ID. As a result, the States will probably comply, as a Federally valid form of ID is required to, say, board planes.
To me, that tack seems to fit well with Michael W.’s argument above about Federal responsibility for immigration, so I see absolutely no problem with Federalism. Others may see it as a left-handed way of implementing an unfunded mandate. I understand the argument, but do not find it compelling.
Finally, if this is indeed the final form of the legislation, it’s no more a "National ID" card than the current DL is. |
| |
Written By:
Terry
URL:
http://
|
Ihre papiere, bitte! (Gestapo for Your Papers Please). Those words I pray we never hear in the USA. Ignoring the fact that "Gestapo" is not a language, what is the fear of proving your identity? The Supreme Court has already ruled that police can require that you give them your name. No one has yet explained how a national ID can be used to violate any rights. We already carry a vast number of identifying forms. What is the fear of a standardized form similar to a passport? What am I missing?
|
| |
Written By:
JWG
URL:
http://www.qando.net
|
What is the fear of a standardized form similar to a passport? What am I missing? At what point must you have such a passport in order to move around within the US? |
| |
Written By:
Mark Flacy
URL:
http://
|
At what point must you have such a passport in order to move around within the US
Holy crap, talk about anticipating the "slippery slope"
You take it too damn far with the paranoia. Why do you even bother to get out of bed in the morning, after all, something bad can happen?
You know, why is there always such rumination and ponderous discussion about something that really should be a slam dunk? Maybe I’m just a common type, but I’ve always felt that a national ID card (or 1 uniform standard for issuing state IDs)is a good thing, and I would bet that most would generally think the same way.
This is something that should get done, in fact I would say it needs to be done....so get it done already.
I don’t want to hear any of this "At what point must you have such a passport in order to move around within the US" crap, because you’re putting off something that needs to be done because of some theoretical that wouldn’t happen until sometime in the future? No thanks. Furthermore, if it ever gets to that point, it won’t be the fault of the national ID card.
This is a case where politics- something I generally find endlessly fun- is just tiring, |
| |
Written By:
Shark
URL:
http://www.qando.net
|
|
First, nobody answered Ogre’s question, which is mine as well: what happened to the "unfunded mandate" objection? Second, this seems to me to be Congress trying to be cute. Few in power really want to enforce our borders because our economy depends too much on "illegals". But these clowns (in the legislature, of course) want to look like they are doing something. By foisting what should be the federal government’s job off onto the states, they are virtually guaranteeing that illegals will find a way to circumvent or defeat the (so-called) intent of the law. My prediction is that should this pass, agricultural states, despite being "red", will have the worst record of enforcement. And that’s my point—this whole thing is just a ruse. |
| |
Written By:
David in AK
URL:
http://
|
At what point must you have such a passport in order to move around within the US? We already use driver’s licenses as ID, and we don’t need them to pass from one state to another. The problem with lisences as ID is they are not standard and have different requirements to obtain them. What is the fear of using a standardized form of ID (like a passport is standard for any American)? Why would a national ID be any worse than using a driver’s license for an ID? If you are opposed, why can’t you actually give reasons for your opposition? |
| |
Written By:
JWG
URL:
http://www.qando.net
|
Why would a national ID be any worse than using a driver’s license for an ID? If you are opposed, why can’t you actually give reasons for your opposition?
The question, to me at least, is will these mandated changes to the states require reporting the particulars of each license holder to a central national database? If so, I’d oppose it. If not, if the bill mandates the states certify citizenship or legal status, then I have no real problem with it. |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.qando.net/
|
will these mandated changes to the states require reporting the particulars of each license holder to a central national database? Which particulars available on a driver’s license would be subject to abuse in a national database? The only info on my Indiana license is my license number, birthdate, and address. Since I have a SS# and file taxes, the federal government already knows my birthdate and address. I suppose they could record info from my birth certificate that I originally used to obtain a license, but that would add my birthplace and my parents’ names and birthplaces. Maybe a National ID would contain more info...if so I’m interested in what it would be and how it could be used against me. |
| |
Written By:
JWG
URL:
http://
|
|
To me, "The State already is too intrusive and doesn’t need to know any more about us" is good enough as arguments go. We can discuss the particulars of how an ID policy might better be implemented, but I don’t see why the burden of argument falls upon those suspicious of the State. Why don’t you National ID folks tell me what great benefits we can expect to reap by forfieting more privacy to the State? |
| |
Written By:
spongeworthy
URL:
http://
|
There are two ’State’ entities that know a lot about me, the State of Oklahoma and the United States Government. I suppose I’ll refer to them collectively as ’The State’, since I don’t forsee Oklahoma refusing the Feds anything they think they need to know.
Thus, the State already knows my age, blood type, SSN, and the most recent claims I made as to height, weight, eye, and hair color.
The State knows my address, my organ donor status, and birth date.
The State, via the IRS and the OTC, already knows my License Tag number, my reported income, my taxes paid, my marital status... if FASFA keeps any archives, they know my parents’ names, their address, their income as of several years ago.
The State probably knows even more stuff about every single member of the Military.
What else could they possibly require on a Driver’s License (remember, that’s the topic) other than, say, a checkbox that says, "U.S. Citizen, Y/N?"
|
| |
Written By:
Dave
URL:
http://www.thepatriette.com/dangerous
|
by forfieting more privacy to the State What additional privacy do you expect to lose? |
| |
Written By:
JWG
URL:
http://
|
nobody answered Ogre’s question, which is mine as well: what happened to the "unfunded mandate" objection? Here’s what all states would be required to do according to the NYT article:Under the rules being considered, before granting a driver’s license, a state would have to require proof of citizenship or legal presence, proof of an address and proof of a Social Security number. It would need to check the legal status of noncitizens against a national immigration database, to save copies of any documents shown and to store a digital image of the face of each applicant.
The licenses issued must include the driver’s address and a digital photograph, and would incorporate new authentication features designed to prevent counterfeits. The new law would also require that the licenses of legal temporary residents expire when their visas do. The rules would also apply to renewals, an aide involved in the conference said.
Since some states aren’t doing this (and they should be), then I have no problem with the federal government dictating some common sense procedures. Considering many states are already doing most of these procedures, how much additional money do you imagine this will cost states compared to the savings of preventing illegals from accessing prohibited services? |
| |
Written By:
JWG
URL:
http://
|
|
How about the ability to travel willy-nilly without needing to produce documents to functionaries? While I’m sure I would be allowed to pass, that is a freedom I would ultimately "expect" to lose. Now can you tell me what I could expect to gain? |
| |
Written By:
spongeworthy
URL:
http://
|
Why don’t you National ID folks tell me what great benefits we can expect to reap by forfieting more privacy to the State? Here is what I want: an ID system that cannot be forged and is safe from unauthorized use. That would seem to necessitate a standard to which everyone complies. Whether that is best achieved through one issuer or multiple issuers is a good debate. It seems to me that the current proposal is allowing a multiple issuer approach. But not everyone needs a driver’s license. You do need a form of ID, however. Why do we want to rely on 50 different versions when we could come up with one standard? Then use driver’s licenses as just that, rather than as de facto national IDs with a variety of standards.What additional privacy do you expect to lose?How about the ability to travel willy-nilly without needing to produce documents to functionaries? How does using driver’s licenses rather than national IDs prevent this now? Why would it be different with a national ID? |
| |
Written By:
JWG
URL:
http://
|
A driver’s license confirms the legality of driving for the holder. What purpose does a national ID serve? I don’t need a driver’s license to go to Connecticut for a ball game, and the fact that you guys prefer a national ID does little to allay my concerns. What would I need it for except as a reason for someone to stop me and make sure it’s okay for me to go to Connecticut?
Citizenship status for licensed drivers: A good thing. National ID? You guys have work to do. No one’s even answered the question: What’s in it for me? |
| |
Written By:
spongeworthy
URL:
http://
|
No one’s even answered the question: What’s in it for me? I did answer it. You get a secure form of ID when you need it. When do you need it? To perform banking procedures (you don’t want someone pretending to be you, do you?), to fly on a plane, to verify that you are you whenever it is necessary (maybe to vote?). It will make fraud much more difficult. Why in the world would you need an ID to go to a ball game? If the ballpark requires an ID, they can already ask you for your license, so how does a national ID make the potential problem worse? I have to use my license to prove my identity all the time.Citizenship status for licensed drivers: A good thing. If you are saying that you have to be a citizen to drive...why? Shouldn’t you just have to prove that you know the driving laws and can operate a vehicle? Why should a driver’s license be a proof of citizenship? |
| |
Written By:
JWG
URL:
http://
|
I meant citizenship status noted on the license, or checked at the DMV. I certainly could have phrased that better.
Look at your list of advatages—they’re all freedoms I enjoy now. I can already bank, fly, go to ballgames and vote with just the ID I carry. If you’re telling me I won’t be able to do that stuff in the future without a Federally-issued ID, you’re not really selling this very well.
It appears you guys want me to sacrifice freedom to gain very little. You mentioned fraud, but if fraud’s the problem let’s get after that. In the meantime, think of some way any ID can be made fraud-proof, because any efforts to make it so are extremely intrusive, like DNA strips and retinal scanning. For what? Fraud?
No sale. |
| |
Written By:
spongeworthy
URL:
http://
|
For what? Fraud? No sale. Financial fraud costs the country billions of dollars, both in identity theft and people accessing services they’re not entitled to.Look at your list of advatages—they’re all freedoms I enjoy now. Exactly, but they will become safer for the consumer if identification is more secure. The ID you currently carry is issued based on little security and 50 different standards.think of some way any ID can be made fraud-proof, because any efforts to make it so are extremely intrusive There are several levels of possible security such as human verification (can you demonstrate who you are before the ID is issued), anti-conterfeit measures (make it difficult to replicate fake ID), and biometrics (only the authorized user can use the ID). You’re worried about biometrics, but that data wouldn’t have to reside anywhere but on the ID itself...no database storage.Not everyone drives, so you are forcing us to maintain over 100 different forms of IDs (driver’s license or state ID) and procedures. That is a huge security problem when it comes to identification, which everyone needs. |
| |
Written By:
JWG
URL:
http://
|
I meant citizenship status noted on the license, or checked at the DMV. I certainly could have phrased that better.
Look at your list of advatages—they’re all freedoms I enjoy now. I can already bank, fly, go to ballgames and vote with just the ID I carry. If you’re telling me I won’t be able to do that stuff in the future without a Federally-issued ID, you’re not really selling this very well.
It appears you guys want me to sacrifice freedom to gain very little. You mentioned fraud, but if fraud’s the problem let’s get after that. In the meantime, think of some way any ID can be made fraud-proof, because any efforts to make it so are extremely intrusive, like DNA strips and retinal scanning. For what? Fraud?
No sale. |
| |
Written By:
spongeworthy
URL:
http://
|
Maybe we could ask the private sector to address their fraud problem and give consumers a choice in the matter. I’m not sure identity theft is an area the Federal government should be involved in outside of prosecutions.
There are a lot of different standards and the proposal we’re discussing above would address part of that.
I guess I just don’t see the benefits outweighing the potential for abuse. For instance, you say the biometris wouldn’t be registered, but I can hear the sales pitch already, how a central registry would prevent fraud and make identification easier and help return lost cards and so on.
I’m not crying Slippery Slope here so much as nipping this in the bud. Would it really improve our security? Is the real agenda to identify illegals so we can send them home? Is the threat they represent worth sacrificing this much freedom? And does the lack of ID really thwart terrorists or just make them change tactics?
Sorry for the repeat. |
| |
Written By:
spongeworthy
URL:
http://
|
sacrificing this much freedom I still don’t understand what freedom you’re sacrificing. Either the state government issues you an ID or the federal government does. When states do it there are at least 50 variations as opposed to one standard. Either way someone has some of your information. You seem to feel safer if it’s a state rather than a federal agency. |
| |
Written By:
JWG
URL:
http://
|
Here in Mexico we already have a national ID card: the credencial para votar issued by the Federal Electoral Commission. To conduct any official business (open a bank account, get a driver’s license, board a plane), you must have a voter registration card or passport. For foreigners, the only acceptable proof of identification is a valid passport. Most official procedures (and even unofficial procedures, such as renting a house) require foreigners to demonstrate that they are in the country legally.
We would never allow people who are in the country illegally to enjoy any of the benefits of citizenship. Why would you? |
| |
Written By:
Ariel Nuncio P.
URL:
http://
|
For the sake of accuracy, I decided to call my local motor vehicle department to ask about officially valid identification documents (see my last post). It turns out that there are three: the voter ID card, a valid passport or military ID (cartilla militar). If you’re in Mexico and don’t have at least one of these documents, you would have to conduct all of your official business through someone who does have a valid ID.
A friend of mine, a Frenchman, married a Mexican woman several years ago. He still has to renew his visa every year at a cost of around $1,000 dollars. It’s not that he hasn’t tried to get legal residency, it’s just that we make it as hard as possible (to keep out the riff-raff, one can only assume).
Mexican diplomats will soon express our government’s consternation over the Real ID Act. We’re fervent believers in the benefits of free immigration, providing that means Mexicans can emigrate freely to the US. When it comes to the occasional brave souls who want to emigrate in the opposite direction, sorry, but we believe in keeping Mexico pure for Mexicans.
Both countries lose under the current arrangement, which is hypocritical on both sides. |
| |
Written By:
Ariel Nuncio P.
URL:
http://
|
