Let’s make mandatory federal ID cards constitutional

As a Pajamas Media blogger, it struck me as unseemly to disagree with Roger L. Simon, so I wrote much of this post, but hesitated to publish it. (This blog’s archives contain many hundreds of “permanently-hesitated” posts, for other, innumerable reasons)
But hey, now that Glenn Reynolds has seen fit to say what he thinks, and I’m looking for an excuse not to drive to New Jersey as I’m supposed to be doing right now, I figure that I have two good reasons for finishing what I started.
I hope Roger will not take offense at my cowardly about-face in deciding to publish what last night I decided to neglect, and I also hope he realizes that I agree with the soundness of his reasoning. In principle, I agree with the idea that we need to be able to identify people more easily. And certainly, the fact that we have no privacy is beyond dispute.
Here’s Roger:

Pajamas Media is spying on you, as is–assuming you have cookies enabled–nearly every other website you have visited in the last couple of years. At PJM we try to keep this snooping to a gentlemanly minimum but others, like Amazon, seem to know more about us than do our mothers. Then there are the credit card companies and the banks, the department stores and utilities and insurance companies, credit reports, stock brokers, internet providers, cable and satellite companies, the federal and state governments, social security, the IRS, Medicare and your mortuary. I could go on, but you get the point.
Privacy, to paraphrase the great Preston Sturges, is not only dead, it’s decomposed.
So what’s the big deal about a national ID card already?

Anticipating objections, Roger says:

I’m sure you’ll have some. But please, no ideology. Just practical considerations.
If not, sign me up, Big Brother. I’m ready for my card – today.

Fair enough, As to the practical side, there’s not much of an argument against it. We’ve lost our privacy — big deal or not.
There is a difference, though, between Amazon.com watching my book purchases because it wants to sell me more and the government watching them because it wants to know whether I’m a political threat. I can easily opt out of Amazon knowing what I read (or any company knowing what I’m buying) by going to a store and paying cash. It’s a question of degree. What people and companies do, I can control, and I can decide to withdraw my consent. When the government does it, I can’t. Amazon.com can’t make me do anything; the government can.
That element of coercion is what I don’t like about national ID cards. I see no way to implement such a thing without making it mandatory in nature. Mandatory, by the way, would mean get one or go to jail. A crime not to have it? I’d be pretty pissed if Amazon were able to get laws passed forbidding me from buying books outside of Amazon, and the gummint is a lot more powerful and threatening than Amazon.
Now, if the cards were made voluntary, that would assuage some of my concerns. But I just don’t like the government telling me that I have to do something (or that an employer has to make me something) or go to jail. Besides, I already have a passport; why should I be forced to get something else? To make the country safer?
This is not to suggest that there aren’t many good reasons for implementing national ID. Roger outlines them in detail. But the desirability of something is not a justification for doing it, especially if the government does not have power to do it.
Where in the Constitution does the federal government have the power to declare that citizens must have federally-issued ID? Back in 1919, it was believed that the federal government didn’t have power to prohibit alcohol; hence the 18th Amendment (which I call the “Telltale Amendment“).
Many good arguments were advanced in favor of Prohibition, and I think a powerful argument can be made for national ID cards, which Roger makes in a compelling manner.
If there’s a huge overwhelming consensus that the federal government involve itself in people’s lives to the point of issuing mandatory ID for all, I think that’s a perfect case for doing it the right way — with a constitutional amendment. (Or do we not do things the right way anymore? Could Prohibition be reenacted today by Congress?)
The Constitution aside, I have one other practical concern. What about the uncontrollable border? Will the ID card requirement stop anyone from crossing the way they do now? I don’t see how; all that will happen is that the responsible employers will now have a way of verifying someone’s identity, and making sure he has the right to be here, and to work. Won’t the countless aliens who hang out at lumber yards and construction sites begging for work still do that? Won’t people still hire them to do the unskilled labor that teenagers refuse to do? If stringent gun control measures failed to stop Jose Carranza from getting a gun and shooting innocent college students, what would an ID card requirement have added except another charge?
As to me, I just don’t want to be forced to stand in another long line, and I’m with Glenn when he sites our “current passport woes.” Why do I need yet another government-issued document? Not only will it irritate me, but it will irritate hundreds of millions of other Americans, who will probably be even more irritated at the people who don’t — or can’t — get the card.
What will be done about these people? Who will do it? Exactly how is a tamperproof card for the legals supposed to make the illegals go away?
I guess the cards won’t be for everybody.
But isn’t that just another double standard? Yes, unless they unleash a new policy requiring constant, regular stops for citizens at ID checkpoints, along with mandatory deportation of non-compliant aliens (something I don’t think is likely to happen unless Manhattan is nuked).
Anyway, those are my thoughts, hastily published now, because I have to drive to New Jersey. (Bad as that is, it’s better than standing in another huge $%*# line to get the card knowing all the while that the target group will never stand in it.)
UPDATE: Regarding the terrorist issue, considering that many of the 9/11 hijackers had entered the US legally, I would assume that had there been a national ID card at that time, they’d have each been given one. How would any such card deter terrorism, especially if the cardholder is willing to commit suicide? And if we assume that the visa-holder overstays illegally (as did Mohammad Atta), the card won’t turn him in unless it’s equipped with RFID technology or feeding into a GPS device like parolees’ electronic ankle bracelets.
As commenter Doug S. points out, “it’s not the ID but the database that will be linked to it.” Might it do more than that? Technology is relentless; is there any reason why these wouldn’t be made “smart” and ultimately behave like implantable biochips?
Are we just talking about a tamperproof card?


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

9 responses to “Let’s make mandatory federal ID cards constitutional”

  1. tim maguire Avatar
    tim maguire

    In my opinion, this is one of those areas where Roger shows his Collectivist roots. I can’t articulate a solid argument why the national ID card is wrong, but everytime I hear of it I get a mental picture of a German police inspector stopping someone on the street.
    “Papers, please!”
    As you point out in your essay, a national ID card doesn’t get us there, but it is a critical step in that direction. A step in the direction of “we are the property of the state and we exist at its pleasure.”

  2. John Burgess Avatar

    I’m not perturbed by a national ID. Every time a cross a national border, I’ve got to provide mine in the form of a passport. That passport will also serve as definitive ID for a lot of other purposes, particularly those concerned with money and banking, but including rental applications for housing, automobiles, or equipment.
    Make the ID serve as a passport as well and most of the arguments (excluding those alluding to police states on ideological grounds) go away.
    Instead of making non-possession of an ID card a crime, one could always make any and all financial transactions with a person lacking such a card a crime.

  3. Doug_S Avatar
    Doug_S

    Its not the ID, its the database that will be linked to it. You won’t be able to make or delete entries; people in authority will. From the teacher who enters “has a problem with authority” to your medical records, your fico score and your booze purchases and it will not be kept confidential any more than Bush’s sealed DUI, when it suited the purpose of people in power to attack someone.

  4. M. Simon Avatar

    Tamper proof?
    Sure – for about a year. After that the crooks will be in full production.
    Why wait a year though? Forged birth certificates and other such documents will do the trick nicely.
    It is like gun control. Every one who believes in it assumes criminals will obey the law.
    What happens if the government screws up in .1% of the cases. That is 200,000 people out of work until the cases get corrected.
    Suppose the screw up rate is more similar to the IRS rate – on the order of 30%. That will be 60 million screaming Americans (assuming only that it will affect the 200 million working Americans).
    Government is notorious for screwing up data bases and confusing people with the same or similar names.
    In fact it will hinder national security because the assumption is that some one with the proper ID is OK. Not a good working assumption.
    And who is this directed against? Terrorists? Nope. They will have the cash and contacts to defeat the system. This is all about punishing Mexicans who work here.
    In a tight labor market throwing out 5 million workers (or 10 million if the official numbers are correct) is a stupid idea.
    This idea is not about solving real problems. It is about government power and control.
    And what is the plan for rolling this out to 300 million Americans? And who is going to pay for it? How much will it cost. In Illinois it costs $20 for an ID. That would be $6 bn for the cards. How much for the data base? Plus how long will it take to develop the data base and implement it? $6 bn? $60 bn?
    The Canadian gun registry is a fine example. Something like $2 bn wasted and it still doesn’t work. The USA is 15X larger.

  5. Doug_S Avatar
    Doug_S

    Wow, quoted on the front page. Thanks.
    Here is my nightmare. National ID and every dataentry is naturally keyed to it. Citizen X writes something critical of candidate Hillery. Candidate sets agent to investigate citizen who has unfettered access to citizen’s national id number and the data under it. (remember the FBI files).
    Agent looks over your medical records, purchases, legal filings, .. . wait there is a devorce in the past, he knows many devorces have allegations of child abuse in custody battles (as well as many other sensational claims) he downloads sworn statements of the ex-wife that the target abused not only his former wife but his helpless children (with pictures of the shildren for drama).
    The database will make an instrument of control, nothing less.

  6. M. Simon Avatar

    John Burgess says;
    Instead of making non-possession of an ID card a crime, one could always make any and all financial transactions with a person lacking such a card a crime.
    The mark of the beast? I’m sure the Christians in America will love that.

  7. Gregory Avatar
    Gregory

    Argh, for crying out loud. Look, I come from Malaysia, which is obviously not the freest place in the world (in fact, it may be in the bottom half for all I know), but we, along with Singapore, have implemented the National ID decades ago.
    I don’t see a large number of us non-Muslims being gassed, somehow. And you don’t wanna talk about bureaucracy, man, we beat you guys hands down when it comes to government ineptitude.
    You in the US have got an amazing array of freedoms, checks and balances on the govt that simply do not exist in my country. Our Constitution, for example, seems to be nothing more than toilet paper for our politicians (why else would they keep crapping on it?). We have dozens – dozens! – of amendments over a 50 year history. How many do you guys have? 14? 20?
    I somehow cannot see the end of the world coming from your govt requiring the use of your IDs for any SUBSTANTIVE transaction (opening bank accounts, registration for voting rights, hell, buying a car). They can go STFU and STFD for cash purchases, though.
    Just for disclosure, we are now using a Smart Card system (I believe it’s the EMV chip) for our ID cards. Those damned things work as drivers’ licences, passports, meditags, ATM cards, the whole megillah. You bet I pray they’re tamper-proof.

  8. notalawyer Avatar
    notalawyer

    Not sure what I think about ID cards in general, but if we eventually have them, how about a state-based solution? Most American adults now have driver’s licenses, and many who don’t find it useful to get a non-driving ID card issued by their state.
    Merchants make me show a driver’s license (sometimes) when I buy on credit. Cops make me show it when they stop me on the road. Banks where I don’t have an account make me show it to cash a check. For all these purposes a driver’s license (or its non-driving equivalent) do quite well. And if I can ever use that same card as a passport, so much the better.
    If the feds want to put all our info into a huge database, they can, without even creating their own card.

  9. Doug_S Avatar
    Doug_S

    My brother in law hacked the computer at his undergrad institution to give him a passing grade. He was found out. he disappeared the year and applied to a new institution and is married with a job now.
    Under federal ID he would have never been able to ditch the mistake absent a bribe to a corrupt government official.