Ezra Klein: So Who Are You?

« Recovery Ain't Easy | Main | Link of the Day »

April 11, 2006

So Who Are You?

Yeah, I know the arguments against, but it's things like this that make me support a national ID card. There's just no reason anyone in this country shouldn't be able to provide proof of identity. It's not unreasonable to ask for documentation when registering voters or providing health care, but it's unconscionable that so many of the poor lack the easy access or accessible resources that would allow them to procure identification.

April 11, 2006 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d83481e23253ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference So Who Are You?:

Comments

I was going to say "Okay, but you better make sure that it's damn easy to get one, then." But I realized that I absolutely don't trust states and a certain political party with a long, ugly history of disenfranchisement to do anything of the kind. You can't just throw out the idea of a national ID card without some enforcement mechanism to make sure it doesn't become a national Georgia-style new poll tax.

Posted by: Alexander "Benjamins" Hamilton | Apr 11, 2006 4:36:25 PM

When registering to vote, one can produce a utility bill or some such thing. We don't need a national identity card. Period.

When someone seeks health treatment, they should get treated. It's actually pretty easy to see if they're gaming the system. If someone wants to get a broken leg treated, but they don't have a broken leg, then they don't get treated for it. We have to get rid of the idea that there's these millions of goobers lining up at our ER's asking for medical care that they don't need, purely for the joy of knowing that they are sticking it to all of the honest, hardworking taxpayers out there.

Enron stole $40 billion from California alone, never mind all the employees and other investors who lost billions of dollars. I'll stack that $40,000,000,000 against all of the illegal immigrants who have fraudulently received medical care, food stamps, AFDC, TAF, whatever you want, and that's just one example of corporate thievery. National ID cards aren't going to protect us from Ken Lay or Bernie Ebbers, but they sure are going to make it easier for unscrupulous administrations to track what we do, where we go and who we talk to.

Posted by: Stephen | Apr 11, 2006 4:42:06 PM

US Passport is the answer, with an accompanying wallet-card with pic/biommetrics. For Greencard holders, and other visas, just the mini-card with same data.

This is not a state responsibility, but the US govt.

(But we'd best figure out what to do with those without documentation FIRST!)

Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Apr 11, 2006 4:43:17 PM

Right, a national ID would take it from the states and make it federal.

Posted by: Ezra | Apr 11, 2006 4:49:05 PM

appropriate song for the times: (theme of CSI - 'tv's most watched program)

chorus:
Well, who are you? (Who are you? Who, who, who, who?)
I really wanna know (Who are you? Who, who, who, who?)
Tell me, who are you? (Who are you? Who, who, who, who?)
'Cause I really wanna know (Who are you? Who, who, who, who?)

Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Apr 11, 2006 4:50:48 PM

"I'll stack that $40,000,000,000 against all of the illegal immigrants who have fraudulently received medical care, food stamps, AFDC, TAF, whatever you want, and that's just one example of corporate thievery."

You got it right! How about the billions of US taxpayer dollars stolen by "contractors" in Iraq? Or the millions scammed by Katrina profiteers? These criminals are all US citizens, I doubt Halliburton, KBR, and the GOP-front firms are owned by illegal aliens who swam over from South America.

Posted by: CParis | Apr 11, 2006 5:17:53 PM

A certain political party with a long, ugly history of disenfranchisement?

Hamilton: I hope you're not referring to the party I think you are...

Posted by: slickdpdx | Apr 11, 2006 5:56:42 PM

Actually, I was wrong to point at a political party for a long period: it was the Southern Dems before the 60s, and usually the Republicans thereafter. I really was just generally concerned with racially targeted efforts to disenfranchise people by throwing up barriers to voting.

It's not just voting, though. In New York, the various public-benefit agencies will try just about anything to put administrative roadblocks in people's way, legitimate or not, as a way of holding down costs. As I said, I would be okay with creating and requiring a national ID, but only if it were a hell of a lot easier to get one than it is, for example, to get a replacement Social Security card now (in my case, four hours on line and then a two-week wait, and I had supporting documentation of my identity). And after the last few years I don't see how you could look at the monkey business with ID requirements on the state level and not see the potential for the same or worse on the federal level.

Posted by: Alexander "Benjamins" Hamilton | Apr 11, 2006 6:11:57 PM

I'm not sure that making it is easy to get such an ID is the best way to make it fair or effective. While I don't want to see agencies creating improper roadblocks to receiving government assistance, the elimination of fraud increases the amount of money to the deserving.

Posted by: slickdpdx | Apr 11, 2006 7:54:38 PM

I will confess that I am having a hard time making up my mind about having a national identification card. I will observe, though, that anybody that wants one can have one -- just get a passport. Now you might say that's too big a hassle and expense for poor people, but presumably we could fix that by waiving the fee if you can produce some other evidence of poverty.

To me, the question of whether we should have a national ID is almost a detail, because it bypasses the two really interesting questions:

1. Should you be required to produce your ID simply because a cop asks you too? Are we going to outlaw anonymity in the last anonymous sphere, the street?

2. What should be the privileges of citizens, versus non-citizens, in addition to voting and unfettered travel across our borders?

I think if you hash out these to questions, not by defaulting to "what is" but focusing on "what ought to be," the national ID question almost resolves itself.

Posted by: TigerHawk | Apr 12, 2006 7:06:18 AM

1. Should you be required to produce your ID simply because a cop asks you too? Are we going to outlaw anonymity in the last anonymous sphere, the street?

2. What should be the privileges of citizens, versus non-citizens, in addition to voting and unfettered travel across our borders?

I think if you hash out these to questions, not by defaulting to "what is" but focusing on "what ought to be," the national ID question almost resolves itself.

1. One or the other of us must have a really basic misunderstanding of terms, because I never thought of the street as anonymous. I hope we don't outlaw anonymity in the home, which IS the "last anonymous sphere". (Or in a pinch, on private property in general, since the right to be anonymous is a joke if it's only in a place you own.) The whole issue of having a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in a car has always stumped me; it leads to odd conclusions like an officer should be able to search you in downtown driving but not on back roads or the highway. I almost want to say that that is one area where principle should bow to pragmatism, otherwise where would be if arresting people for DUI was unconstitutional? But that's a weak argument, I know, so I'm open to being convinced. Anyway, to your first point, I'd reflexively say "no" to the first question, but they seem unrelated.

2. More interesting and important than that is, how should someone be able to become a citizen? Should the 14th Amendment be treated like a specific fix for a one-time problem or a general principle? We could institute Ralph Nader's fantasy of social justice, to use an extreme hypothetical, but it wouldn't mean much if we had to bring back exile as a legal punishment to make it work.

Also, I don't see how the national ID question almost resolves itself. I assume you'd answer "no" to the first questions, but the second ones are less obvious. (And while we're at it I think it's usually a dodge to say "just focus on what ought to be" unless you have a specific way of getting to that scenario in mind, but anyway.)

Posted by: Cyrus | Apr 12, 2006 8:13:25 AM

1. No. However, a national ID card would be no different than any identification. Driving or not, if a cop as reasonable suspicion you are doing something wrong, they can ask you to identify yourself. I don't see how or why a national ID card would change that.

2. I don't know if this is a liberal consensus or not, but I don't think they have the rights to either. Actually, doesn't the government reserve the right to restrict citizens from unfettered access through the borders anyway?

WAAF in Boston was interviewing Denis Leary this morning and he said his parents were illegal immigrants themselves. They came over here, didn't get legal permission to do so, worked hard and created a life for themselves and eventually got citizenship. I think most liberals believe that a great majority of what we're currently calling "illegals" deserves that same chance. That includes access to healthcare in the interim.

A national ID makes sense only in an effort to standardize requirements for identification in this country. It shouldn't be used, abused, or required anymore than a drivers licence, passport, SS card or birth certificate are right now.

It certainly relates to "illegals," but only in a secondary sense and I don't see that it would be impossible to be enforced fairly. Clearly, this Congress can't be trusted to craft legislation on this matter. But I beleive a Democratic or at least a split one could, and provided that the process for obtaining doesn't discriminate against the poor and disenfranchised, I see nothing wrong with it.

Posted by: Adrock | Apr 12, 2006 9:47:18 AM

But Adrock,
If you require ID to vote (any ID), all of the dead who vote Democrat will be disenfranchised!!

Posted by: Fred Jones | Apr 12, 2006 10:14:56 AM

But you'll still continue to be a douchebag. I guess only some things change.

Posted by: Adrock | Apr 12, 2006 10:44:33 AM

When the tax act of 1986 (implemented in 1987)required Social Security numbers to claim dependent exemptions for children on tax returns, over seven million children disappeared.

Amazing!

I would support requiring ID, even a state drivers license, to determine if you are a citzen and can vote. How many people will disappear from the voters rolls if this happens?

Posted by: Fred Jones | Apr 12, 2006 11:11:37 AM

How many people will disappear from the voters rolls if this happens?

I also support providing ancestral documentation to prove that your forebears entered legally, or were around in 1492. You first, Freddie Douchebag. Which Rhondda mining village was the cradle of your sad little DNA?

Anyway, the obvious problems here: the utter inadequacy of federal data protection laws, since any identity data will be placed in the hands of private hostpitals and insurers; the use of 'papers, please' in yer bogstandard racial profiling (aka 'driving while black'); etc. You're also not going to federalise births/deaths/marriages without a fight, either. Heck, I like that idea: make every natural-born citizen file a N-400 with the USCIS in order to get their federal ID. Let them wait for 18 months, and form lines at 5am outside the district office three hours' drive away.

Posted by: nick s | Apr 12, 2006 1:46:32 PM

I also support providing ancestral documentation...

What a great strawman!

However, the issue is are you a citizen with the right to vote or are you not? Why is that so evil to ask only those who have citizenship to vote? A drivers license or even a state issued ID would suffice.
I think you must understand that many of the 'voters' would disappear off of the rolls....particularly Dem voter rolls. What other reason could anyone have for asking for this kind of ID?

Posted by: Fred Jones | Apr 12, 2006 2:22:42 PM

"I think you must understand that many of the 'voters' would disappear off of the rolls....particularly Dem voter rolls"

Another great straw man! Rampant voter fraud in Democratic strongholds and no evidence offered to support it. How about Ann Coulter being investigated for voting in the wrong precinct? Should she be jailed?

Posted by: Andrew | Apr 12, 2006 3:10:50 PM

All voters should vote only in any precinct only if they have the right to vote there. I can't answer what, if any, punsishment should be doled out. I leave that to the justice system.

What I am talking about is preventative measures..... Asking for ID to ensure the legitimacy of our elections. You like the sound of integrity in elections when discussin Diebold.

Why not now?

Posted by: Fred Jones | Apr 12, 2006 3:21:23 PM

A drivers license or even a state issued ID would suffice.

See, Taffy the Troll doesn't even know that filthy foreigners are allowed to hold state licenses or IDs. Amazing! Must be all of the straw he's rolling in.

Posted by: nick s | Apr 12, 2006 9:32:28 PM

The state ID's also could say if they are verified citizens. It seems you wish not to discuss, but to attack.

It seems *you* are the troll here (moron).

Posted by: Fred Jones | Apr 13, 2006 12:13:33 PM

The state ID's also could say if they are verified citizens.

Oh, now you come up with that one.

Of course, taking that route, we head off into the classic circular identity problem, since an identity document is invariably based upon other identity documents. And we have state vs. federal issues as well, given that state residency per se has sweet FA to do with citizenship.

Oh, and the small issue that a system to certify competence in operating an automobile shouldn't be tied up with one to verify identity for everything else. (Nor should the SSN, either. Or the ITIN, as the IRS makes abundantly clear.) You have been to a DMV office, haven't you? I like to think of them as more efficient versions of the USCIS.

Posted by: nick s | Apr 13, 2006 1:03:33 PM

xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2

xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2