So I had an epiphany while discussing identification and trust with Dog. MPP Seniors Fed Up with GOP Since our social security number is like our primary personal identifier while we are alive in the USA, why don't we put a photo on the card. Granted we may have to update it every 10 or so years as we age. But just look at all the problems it could solve....
One ID could be used for voting, gun access, welfare benefits, proof of citizenship and a host of other things. And all of us citizens are supposed to have one anyway. Thoughts?
And kind of related, in a very weak way... What do you think of Dog's idea to make voter registration compulsory and Rat's resistance to doing so? (sorry in advance for their bickering) Personally I think all of these ideas really drive towards a "national ID", and an accurate running record of who is legally in our country, a few details about their sex, citizenship, criminal, mental health, etc status. With modern computers and servers it should be pretty easy to do, besides then the States could use this database instead of maintaining 50 unique ones... Maybe the NSA already has it running???? (hahahaha)
Too "Big Brother" or a very good idea?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
A Social Security card isn't evidence of citizenship. Actually, photo ID only establishes identity, not citizenship, which is just as well.
Salon had an interesting piece on citizenship issues with respect to Sen. Ted Cruz. Now, let me be clear here, like Sen. John McCain, and I believe every American president up until Martin Van Buren, and unlike President Obama, Sen. Cruz was not born in the United States. However he is, indisputably in my view, an American citizen. The issue raised by Salon was, how would he go about proving it? His birth certificate indicates correctly that he was born in Canada. He is a citizen because his mother, although not his father, was a citizen. If he was challenged at the polls, would he have to produce Mom. And Mom's birth certificate?
--Hiram
In Australia, voting is legally required. Maybe that's something we should do here.
--Hiram
SS Reqd Documents
Non-citizen SS Info
I guess we need to have 2 colors of ss cards, 1 for citizens and 1 for non-citizens. Seems pretty simple...
I hate it when comments get lost! I don't want to rewrite mine which was about why not include fingerprints or eye scans as part of our national ID.
Would Liberals support IDs with some form of verification on them for every man woman and child?
I mean they put up such a fuss regarding the free photo ID's when related to voting...
Sorry for the loss of your comment. It is not in my email or in the "possible spam" folder.
I figured out my problem on MPP. I can see their comment folders. About 100 of mine are sitting in their potential spam folder with ~500 others. It is definitely putting a kink in my participation...
According to law, SS numbers are NOT to be used for anything other than official federal government business-- taxes and SS. Over the last several years, most companies have stopped asking because of the fuss made, many using a phone number instead. Some immigration reform proposals include a "biometric ID" proposal for every immigrant (and sometimes for every citizen as well), while libertarians continue to strongly oppose a "national ID card." The biggest problem with using the SS card for ID is that 90% of illegal aliens are using stolen or false SS numbers. The government KNOWS who they are and where they work, but refuse to do anything about it. THAT is the first "immigration reform" we need; call it "mandatory amnesty." You're given 12 months to leave the country.
The problem we have with ID's is that they provide a reason or an excuse for turning away people at the polls. Actually, this is the same reason we are moving away from ID's elsewhere in our society. When I present my credit card at Target, a card which in no way serves as an adequate ID, they don't ask for further ID. Why? Because they are more concerned with losing the sale than they are that the card will be used fraudulently. When I buy stuff stuff over a computer, they don't even ask to look at the card. If cards aren't required in these kinds of transactions which have the potential of financially enriching a fraudulent user, what sense does it make to require ID's where there is no such possibility?
--Hiram
Voter ID addresses one problem and one problem only; the misidentification of voters. If this were a problem, it would be obvious at the polls. People would arrive at the polls only to find that someone else had already voted in their name. Ask any election judge how much this happens. And when it does happen, ask them how often it's simply the result of a mistake, people signing on the wrong line.
--Hiram
The North Carolina governor, in spite of himself, made a valuable and powerful point in his discussion of voter ID. He pointed out that we require ID when selling precursors to certain illegal drugs. Why do we do that? Because we are concerned with what the purchaser will do with the product. Republicans want voter ID for exactly the same reason. They are concerned with how voters will use their vote. They want to restrict voting to only those people who will use that right in their view, responsibly, that is, people who are more likely to vote Republican.
--Hiram
Target doesn't ask for ID because the credit card company is responsible. That is why the card company's fraud computers monitor us so closely. To minimize their losses.
Mark Hiram down as a no...
Target doesn't ask for ID because the credit card company is responsible
So somebody is willing to assume responsibility who hasn't even seen the credit card, let alone any sort of ID?
There are of course lots of behind the scenes ways to make sure credit cards are used properly. I perfectly willing to consider ways of tightening up registration procedures. Such measures would have a much greater chance of turning up what little fraud there is, and no doubt a great many more honest mistakes. But Republicans have no interest in doing those things because they don't do what Republicans want to do, provide a way to discourage voters they don't like from coming to the polls.
==Hiram
Maybe or maybe not. I think people should have to show a photo ID just because it is typical and normal behavior in our society. And I think voting is more important than cashing a check, buying a beer, renting a hotel room, etc, etc, etc.
And speaking only for myself, I have no interest in preventing anyone from voting.
And as I mentioned, voting is only one use for the "National Photo ID Card/Database"... Though it definitely is a sensitive spot for some folks.
"Maybe or maybe not. I think people should have to show a photo ID just because it is typical and normal behavior in our society."
I almost never have to show a photo ID, and when I do, it's almost never for purposes of identification.
I haven't cashed a check in decades. I haven't carried my checkbook outside the house in maybe a decade. When I want cash, I go to a machine, one that never asks for an ID.
I hear these analogies all the time, and they always seem divorced from reality. The fact is, we rarely have to produce ID anywhere. And those who claim that we do, never seem to go to the next step and ask why ID is requested when it is. For example, ID's are routinely requested at liquor stores. But the clerk doesn't care about your identity, he cares about your age, your qualification to buy liberty. Presumably voter ID has nothing to do with qualification to vote, lots of people who aren't qualified to carry ID's which in no way disqualify them from voting. More perniciously and more relevant in a negative and illuminating way are the airline analogies, where ID's are demanded in order to discourage certain people from receiving the service offered.
Republicans want to demand ID's to enter a voting booth for the same reason, we demand ID's for entering airplanes. In each case, it's because there is concern for what the un-ID'd individual will do once inside them.
--Hiram
Post a Comment