Great take on Arizona immigration flap via sports

How much of a gap is there between a driver's license (or Social Security) card and a national ID card? I realize driver's licenses are issued by states. I also recall the requirement to submit Social Security or driver's license numbers when requesting event credentials.

There might be a coalition between some liberals and conservatives to oppose a national ID card.

 

I just don't get the opposition to a national ID card. Between your driver's license, social security card and passport, the feds have every bit of info on you anyway.

 

You aren't required, legally, to have any of those things.

There's an important distinction between the people allowing the government to exist and the government telling the people they only exist because the government allows it.

 

Well, you really can't get a job today without presenting a SS card and a DL, so I think you're making a very, very fine distinction. But let's just say the card would be entirely voluntary - you wouldn't have to have one, but employers would be allowed to make employment contingent on showing it. Then we're in the same situation we have now - the government's not making you have a DL or SS card, but realistically you need one to work.

Why would anyone oppose that? In the end, I just don't get it. The only people who should be afraid of a national ID card are illegal immigrants, criminals, tax dodgers and others who are essentially afraid of having their identity discovered.

 

I agree with you. Texas is one fucked up state

 

Cortez, your name sounds Hispanic, could I see your papers please?

 

Just the other day Ubaldo Jimenez was detained in Scottsdale.

 

To pretend that only criminals need fear police with ever-increasing power is to intentionally ignore the entirety of human history.

 

To pretend that a national ID card would lead to a police state would ignore the fact that it's required in most Western democracies. National ID cards have never - NEVER - played even a small part in the RISE of a police state. They have been used as a tool BY police states, but that's a different argument since A) we don't have a police state, and B) it's going to take a helluva lot more than national ID cards to put the most stable democracy in history on the road to one.

It's libertarian paranoia at its most laughable.

 

As long as the national ID card isn't mandatory carry, I'm not sure I see the need for it, but I'm not vehemently opposed to it either.

 

Pretty obvious argument here that we're the most stable democracy in history precisely because our founding principles prevent things like Identity Cards and Loyalty Oaths.

 

Well, first of all, loyalty oaths have been passed by multiple states, most of them in the 1950s. The only reason we don't have them is because our supreme court struck them down. So it wasn't obvious to everyone that our founding fathers prevented such things. It would be interesting to see if our current supreme court would have struck them down. Maybe not.

Second, I'd like to think the reason we're the most stable democracy in history goes way, way beyond superficial things like ID cards and loyalty oaths. Again, see Western Europe. An ID card is nothing more than a national DL and it's going to happen eventually, mark it down.

And, Rick, the reason you'd want such cards, even if they weren't mandated to be carried, is so that employers could insist on them when you change jobs. That ONE requirement would be the single biggest thing we could do to stop illegal immigration - no jobs for illegals means a lot fewer illegals.