I fail to see what is objectionable about a national ID card.
Can someone enlighten me. No opinions just facts.
Aside from the Homeland security's ability to add requiremnts to go I see no problem what so ever. In fact it would put a crimp in the stealing of identities. Identify illegals including possible terrorists. Remove the employer excuse I did not know they were illegal. And replace the hodgepog of different documents need to establish identitiy.
Okay. Here's my take:
I fail to see how A national ID will stop terrorists from entering the country. Our borders with Mexico are so porous, all they need is a guide, transportation and money. Having a national ID card will have absolutely no effect on them, because they won't need one to get in.
But they will need one to do other business, you say? Like drive? Not if they take cabs or ride with friends that are citizens. Like work? The 9/11 hijackers did not "work" for $7.00 an hour. They were paid handsomely by Bin Laden. Like medical care? Are we to all have to produce ID for treatment now? Or rent an apartment? Or, buy groceries?
I can see where a national ID would be useful. With that ID, you could track a person's health care, credit record, job history, party affiliation, etc., all lumped together conveniently for one-stop shopping. Do you honestly believe that kind of power would not be abused?
Our Social Security numbers were never supposed to be used for ID, yet today they are widely used as personal identifiers.
This national ID should be stopped in its tracks, and the resources devoted to better border security, not invading U.S. citizen's privacy, if national security is its true purpose.
I don't believe it is. And, might I add that it sounds an awful lot like what's mentioned in Revelations.
Do I believe national security is it's only purpose, no? Will it be somewhat of a deterrent yes. Remember the 9/11 terrorists were able to take flying lessons in the US.
I would no doubt go a long way in deterring identity theft. As for using Social Security # as ident it isn't worth a damn.
Regarding to control of undocumented aliens that of course would be a plus or minus depending which side of the argument one was on.
It would also make it much easier and more seamless when making any type of transaction where identity needed to be established. And an other bonus is that it would make it very difficult for fugitives to hid from the law.
I see very little on the down side.
Then I don't believe you're thinking very hard.
Asherman has also started a thread about this. If he's against it as strongly as he claims... We should all be scared! I don't think I've EVER agreed with Asherman! : )
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=51187&highlight=
Commentary > Opinion
from the May 12, 2005 edition
Quote:
This country needs a real national ID card
By Todd Crowell
KENMORE, WASH. – "May I see some identification, please?" asked a retail clerk taking my check. "Certainly," I said, and handed the woman my Hong Kong identity card. She looked at it blankly for a moment then said, "Can I see some other kind of identification?" Sometimes when I'm feeling cranky or mischievous, I hand over my Hong Kong ID card when I need to produce some kind of identification.
Why not? It's a perfectly valid document. It has my photograph on it. I know of no law that specifies that my Washington state driver's license has become a national ID card. At least not yet.
The US is groping toward a national ID card system, compelled both by worries about security in an age of terrorism and the need to control immigration. But Congress is going about it in the wrong way by trying to elevate state driver's licenses to some kind of national identity card.
Call me too literal, but a driver's license is for driving. Identity verification is something else. Why should citizenship be confused with a demonstrated ability to parallel park?
This seems to be a typical half measure. We've clearly developed a need for some kind of identification card to cash checks, to board airplanes, even to enter a federal building to pick up tax forms. But because nobody actually has to have a driver's license, we kid ourselves that it is still voluntary.
I lived for 16 years in Hong Kong, where everybody over a certain age must obtain an ID card and carry it at all times. I never considered this a serious infringement on my freedom, although it certainly was a hassle to go down to obtain one (and to replace one when lost).
The identity card system long predated the recent concerns over terrorism. In Hong Kong it is used primarily to control illegal immigration into the territory, something that is of concern because, being a rich territory, it is a magnet for immigrants from all over the region, especially from across the border in mainland China.
The Hong Kong police can and do stop people at random and ask them to produce their ID cards. It is not uncommon on the streets to see a couple of policemen huddled around a young Chinese man, inspecting his ID.
That this involves racial profiling is undeniable. In my 16 years there, I never once was asked by a policeman to produce my card. It was assumed, usually correctly, that being a Westerner I had entered on a valid work permit.
Of course, I had to produce my ID, or at least provide the number on it, numerous times during the week in the ordinary course of living, from opening a bank account to applying for a job, to voting (yes, foreigners do vote in Hong Kong elections if they've been there long enough).
Creating a national card, probably issued through the Department of Homeland Security, would lift a burden from state motor-vehicle authorities that they were never intended or equipped to shoulder.
It would end the debilitating arguments over whether illegal aliens should have driver's licenses.
With a proper ID system, legal resident aliens could apply for driver's licenses like everybody else. Why shouldn't your Guatemalan nanny have a driver's license to drive the kids to school so long as she is in this country on a valid work permit?
In Hong Kong, ID cards are issued to everyone, whether or not they are born there, have permanent residentcy (analogous to citizenship), or are on short-term work contracts, like the tens of thousands of domestic helpers from Indonesia and the Philippines.
In the same way, a national identity card is also a requisite if this country is to have any kind of orderly guest-worker program.
A standardized, secure national ID card issued by the federal government is essential for controlling immigration in this country.
In short: It's the way it's done. Anybody who is opposed to issuing these cards may have reasonable grounds to do so, but they should stop complaining about "securing our borders."
au1929 wrote:Commentary > Opinion
from the May 12, 2005 edition
Quote:
This country needs a real national ID card
By Todd Crowell
KENMORE, WASH. - "May I see some identification, please?" asked a retail clerk taking my check. "Certainly," I said, and handed the woman my Hong Kong identity card. She looked at it blankly for a moment then said, "Can I see some other kind of identification?" Sometimes when I'm feeling cranky or mischievous, I hand over my Hong Kong ID card when I need to produce some kind of identification.
Why not? It's a perfectly valid document. It has my photograph on it. I know of no law that specifies that my Washington state driver's license has become a national ID card. At least not yet.
The US is groping toward a national ID card system, compelled both by worries about security in an age of terrorism and the need to control immigration. But Congress is going about it in the wrong way by trying to elevate state driver's licenses to some kind of national identity card.
Call me too literal, but a driver's license is for driving. Identity verification is something else. Why should citizenship be confused with a demonstrated ability to parallel park?
This seems to be a typical half measure. We've clearly developed a need for some kind of identification card to cash checks, to board airplanes, even to enter a federal building to pick up tax forms. But because nobody actually has to have a driver's license, we kid ourselves that it is still voluntary.
I lived for 16 years in Hong Kong, where everybody over a certain age must obtain an ID card and carry it at all times. I never considered this a serious infringement on my freedom, although it certainly was a hassle to go down to obtain one (and to replace one when lost).
The identity card system long predated the recent concerns over terrorism. In Hong Kong it is used primarily to control illegal immigration into the territory, something that is of concern because, being a rich territory, it is a magnet for immigrants from all over the region, especially from across the border in mainland China.
The Hong Kong police can and do stop people at random and ask them to produce their ID cards. It is not uncommon on the streets to see a couple of policemen huddled around a young Chinese man, inspecting his ID.
That this involves racial profiling is undeniable. In my 16 years there, I never once was asked by a policeman to produce my card. It was assumed, usually correctly, that being a Westerner I had entered on a valid work permit.
Of course, I had to produce my ID, or at least provide the number on it, numerous times during the week in the ordinary course of living, from opening a bank account to applying for a job, to voting (yes, foreigners do vote in Hong Kong elections if they've been there long enough).
Creating a national card, probably issued through the Department of Homeland Security, would lift a burden from state motor-vehicle authorities that they were never intended or equipped to shoulder.
It would end the debilitating arguments over whether illegal aliens should have driver's licenses.
With a proper ID system, legal resident aliens could apply for driver's licenses like everybody else. Why shouldn't your Guatemalan nanny have a driver's license to drive the kids to school so long as she is in this country on a valid work permit?
In Hong Kong, ID cards are issued to everyone, whether or not they are born there, have permanent residentcy (analogous to citizenship), or are on short-term work contracts, like the tens of thousands of domestic helpers from Indonesia and the Philippines.
In the same way, a national identity card is also a requisite if this country is to have any kind of orderly guest-worker program.
A standardized, secure national ID card issued by the federal government is essential for controlling immigration in this country.
In short: It's the way it's done. Anybody who is opposed to issuing these cards may have reasonable grounds to do so, but they should stop complaining about "securing our borders."
Why are they using the slippery slope argument with these ID cards? We live in a very technology backed society; doesn't it reason that something like this was bound to happen any way?
I think the only reason people don't like it is because it is happening under the Bush admin. If it were Clinton Bill or Hillary proposing it they wouldn't have an issue.
I am indeed gravely worried that a national identity card and data base might come into existence. This would be, I firmly believe, the beginning of the end of the American experiment. The fears that a Federal government might become so strong and intrusive that individual liberties would be lost was THE overriding motive for adopting the Bill of Rights. The balance has been shifting away from local government to the Federal level since the Great Depression, and this could be the coupe de'grace.
Large databases already exist that contain private and personal information. State and Federal databases contain detailed information that would have been unacceptable even fifty years ago. Leakage of personal information that is used to the detriment of private citizens is a growning national problem, and a growth industry for organized crime. We can not reverse the trends, nor is the collection of data necessarily all bad. So why is this proposal to require every American citizen to have an indentity card that keys to a national data base so alarming?
The databases that currently exist are not linked, nor are they doninated by the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. Our privacy gets some small protection by the difficulties of finding and searching all of the available databases. Federal and States laws prohibit sharing much of the data collected into government databases, and private databases are protected by proprietary interest. Collect all that data into a single database, and the most powerful tool for knowing the most intimate details of every person's life will have been created. Perhaps, that data will never be hacked into, but can we be sure?
The data collected can be determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security without Congressional or Judicial oversight. Should a government appointee be able decide what data should be collected? What if he wants to know your religion and record of church attendance? Should the executive require that your political affiliation and memberships in political clubs be recorded? "This classroom disturbance will go onto your permanent record". We were shocked and discusted at the personal details collected on private citizens by J. Edgar Hoover, and that was nothing compared to the potential in the proposed legislation. Do you suppose that we will never again have a President in office like Nixon who viewed the powers of the Executive as a means of punishing his "enemies list"?
Even if the database were administered by a saint, its mere existence would cast a chilling shadow over how we live our public lives. Will one of our neighbors, annoyed at our style of living, report us to some agency whose report becomes part of our secret dossier? What person would be able to run for public office, if the administration might leak information (that might even be false) that would destroy their life? This is the reality of Big Brother, of a Police State where there is no escape from surveillance and maniputlation.
With the adoption of this system, you would have to carry your identity papers at all times. You would be required to produce them for any police officer or government official upon demand. Check into a hotel, and you would have to show your papers. Ask for a loan, and know that the government is watching your financial dealings. Without your papers, the persumption would be that you ARE NOT a citizen. Being a non-citizen, your Constitutional rights might not apply. The burden of proof shifts from the government, to the citizen. You would effectively lose your citizenship by refusing to comply with the law.
Once again, I want to be clear that I do not believe that this legislation is part of some conspiracy to destroy our Constitutional freedoms. Those who advocate national identity papers and massive centralized files containing unspecified private information are well intentioned. This is a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Of all the security measures that the current crisis forces us to adopt, only this one will not ever be done away with once the present danger is past. This is a fundamental change in the way American government is managed.
Asherman
Yes the senario you descrbe is indeed a nightmare. However, I fail to see why a card that proves who you are would be the fulcrum for the collection of the described data.
Asherman, Where have you read about the intrusive database side of the National ID? Why would the government need to ask for your religion or church attendance? Why would the government care if you have applied for loans, purchased pizza, checked into a hotel?
Please direct me to the information that is making you this cautious as I have concerns that I may be missing something in regards to this issue.
That's mostly speculation.
Where is written what the legislation will actually do and how it will effect people's privacy?
Baldimo wrote:
I think the only reason people don't like it is because it is happening under the Bush admin. If it were Clinton Bill or Hillary proposing it they wouldn't have an issue.
Pretty assumptive isn't it.
I hate GWB, but I support a national ID card.
Stop making everything a Republican vs Democrat issue.
squinney wrote:McGentrix wrote:That's mostly speculation.
Where is written what the legislation will actually do and how it will effect people's privacy?
http://www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/story/0,10801,101657,00.html
Quote:MAY 11, 2005 (COMPUTERWORLD) - The U.S. Senate yesterday passed a bill that would create an
electronic ID card designed to stop illegal immigrants from getting driver's licenses. The U.S. House of Representatives already passed the bill, which was tacked onto an Iraq military spending measure, earlier this year.
The legislation, which President George W. Bush is expected to sign, requires states to issue federally approved
electronic ID cards, including driver's licenses. Anyone without such a card would not be able to board an airplane, an Amtrak train, open a bank account or enter a federal building.
You need a valid photo ID now for that. How is that any different?
Called the Real ID Act, the bill mandates that driver's licenses and other ID cards include a digital photo, features designed to thwart counterfeiting and a
"common machine-readable technology" (also read as bar code) that could include a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag. The technology must meet requirements set out by the Department of Homeland Security.
The mandates take effect in May 2008.
"The Real ID is vital to preventing foreign terrorists from hiding in plain sight while conducting their operations and planning attacks," House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.) said in a statement. "By targeting terrorist travel, the Real ID will assist in our War on Terror efforts to disrupt terrorist operations and help secure our borders."
But critics, including the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union, said the bill would bring the U.S. a giant step closer to creating a national ID system, which would be a tempting target for identity thieves.
"The Real ID Act would establish a vast national database of ID holders, where even a small percentage of errors would cause major social disruption," also read as opinion. according to a statement by the EFF. "The ID would essentially be an internal passport that would be shown before accessing planes, trains, national parks and court houses -- an irresistible target for forgers and identity thieves."
The EFF also said that by calling for the use of "common machine-readable technology," the REAL ID Act will pave the way for the federal government to force every state to put RFID chips into the ID cards.
"The federalization of driver's licenses, and the culling of all information into massive databases, creates a system ripe for identity theft," said Timothy Sparapani, an ACLU legislative counsel, in a statement. "New standards could place our most private information -- including photographs, address and Social Security numbers -- into the hands of identity thieves."
Right. That information is so safe now... 
The ACLU also said that the measure, if signed into law, would make it harder for legal immigrants to get driver's licenses. And it denounced the way the law won passage in the House by being added to a funding bill for the military.
"The Real ID Act was sold as an illegal-immigration fix bill, when in fact it reduces every American's freedom," Sparapani said. "The provisions of this bill could not have passed on their own. Sadly, their inclusion in a 'must pass' bill means that immigrants and citizens alike will face an unnecessary loss of freedom and privacy."
So, again I ask, Where is written what the legislation will actually do and how it will effect people's privacy?
There used to be this scene, common in Hollywood B movie thrillers of the 30's and 40's, where the sinister police inspector in some tin pot dictatorship would stop the hero and heroin at the last moment has they were escaping to freedom and say in a threatening tone. "One moment please, your papers are not in order" Americans, sitting in the snug comfort of the movie theater, would feel smugly superior. We did not have papers and could tell any officious little bureaucrat who tried to pull such a stunt, to go straight to hell. Not any more "your papers are not in order" is now a phrase we will have to get used to dealing with. McGentrix, I find your defense of this national ID to be curiously at odds with the conservative principles you have previously espoused on this forum.
The big question in my view is this....
Do I, as an American citizen, have the right to refuse this national ID ... without my freedom to do business, travel and pursue happiness being curtailed?
This is a question of freedom... nothing less.
Acquiunk wrote:There used to be this scene, common in Hollywood B movie thrillers of the 30's and 40's, where the sinister police inspector in some tin pot dictatorship would stop the hero and heroin at the last moment has they were escaping to freedom and say in a threatening tone. "One moment please, your papers are not in order" Americans, sitting in the snug comfort of the movie theater, would feel smugly superior. We did not have papers and could tell any officious little bureaucrat who tried to pull such a stunt, to go straight to hell. Not any more "your papers are not in order" is now a phrase we will have to get used to dealing with. McGentrix, I find your defense of this national ID to be curiously at odds with the conservative principles you have previously espoused on this forum.
What? You mean I don't fit into the cookie cutter mold you placed me in?
If you do not fly on airplanes, ride on trains, stay in hotels, have a bank account, credit card, home, insurance, etc... I am sure you will be able to not get the national ID.
Let me explain this.
You now have a photo ID that has been issued by the government, yes? I do. Actually I have two. I have a valid NYS Drivers license that has a common machine-readable technology built into it. I had to prove whom I was when I applied for it. I also have a valid United States of America passport which also has common machine-readable technology in it. I had to go through a bit more rigorous process for that one than the DL.
I know people in the military also have a government issued military ID card. I used to have one of those as well. I have a social security number that identifies me uniquly within the social security system.
There is nothing new here folks. The information is already out there.
The fears I have heard so far are not valid in my opinion.
