You Better Believe

The Hill reports that Senate Democrats are mulling a new national ID card:

Democratic leaders have proposed requiring every worker in the nation to carry a national identification card with biometric information, such as a fingerprint, within the next six years, according to a draft of the measure.

The proposal is one of the biggest differences between the newest immigration reform proposal and legislation crafted by late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

The national ID program would be titled the BELIEVE System, [Biometric Enrollment, Locally-stored Information, and Electronic Verification of Employment]....

"The cardholder's identity will be verified by matching the biometric identifier stored within the micro-processing chip on the card to the identifier provided by the cardholder that shall be read by the scanner used by the employer," states the Democratic legislative proposal.

Without defending Arizona's latest lousy law in the immigration arena, I'll give the place this much credit: At least the state fended off REAL ID.

[Hat tip: smallz.]

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Not no,
    HELL NO!

  • Rich||

    The national ID program would be titled the BELIEVE System, [Biometric Enrollment, Locally-stored Information, and Electronic Verification of Employment]

    You can't fool *me*, Jesse. This is from The Onion.

  • Barack Obama||

    Hey, Arizona, you think you are so great? Here's how we do it Chicago style!

  • Rhywun||

    Thanks for that image.

  • LibertyBill||

    Fuck that fascist National ID bullshit

  • ||

    +666

  • ||

    or +616

  • Satan||

    You rang?

  • Satan||

    Stop spoofing me!

  • ||

    Too late!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Those ID cards better include GPS tracking. Or doesn't Congress care about the children?

  • Rich||

    You're right! I await the push for *implanted* ID *chips*.

    It'll show congress cares about the wandering seniors, too.

  • Why They Won't Do That||

    Mark of the Beast! Mark of the Beast!

  • ||

    Your phone has the GPS tracker.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    My phone is at home, is avocado and has a rotary dial, like God intended.

  • Brett L||

    False positives for everyone. Doctorow's Little Brother got that much right. The way to fight databases is to degrade the quality of the data in them.

  • Tim||

    You mean that C. Howie Farts isn't a real person?

  • The Other Kevin||

    No. Neither is Benjamin Dover.

  • Ben Dover||

    Phil McAvity?

  • I. P. Daley||

    Quit making fun of my name, dammit!

  • Seymour Butts||

    I assure you, I'm real.

  • Willie P. Frehley||

    I'm Ace's cousin, but does he give me a job roadying for KISS? Fuck no!

  • ||

    He's waiting for your P&L statement.

  • Brett L||

    Yeah. I was more thinking of putting up scans of elected officials' finger prints on the web with instructions on how to spoof electronic scanners, but your way would work, too.

  • ||

    Have you seen Mike Hunt?

  • ||

    "I'm Hugh Jazz."

    "Hey man, this was a prank, so I'm gonna bail."

    "What a nice young man."

  • Kraven Moorehead||

    You owe me money Epi.

  • Pontius Pilate||

    Do you find it wisible when I say the name...

    'Biggus'...

    ... Dickus?

  • ||

    "I am Spartacus"

    (Thought I'd get that in before Pro Lib did.)

  • Ted S.||

    The British beat you to it.

    Amazingly, they thought this was an argument for ID cards.

  • ||

    ""The way to fight databases is to degrade the quality of the data in them.""

    Which in turn makes government come up with new ways to qualify the accuracy. This ID is an attempt to do just that.

    It should be much easier not to complain about things in a manner that doesn't motivate Congress to do something on a grand scale.

  • Brett L||

    Yeah. Like the No-Fly List... Wait.

  • .||

    I guess it's only Bad when you ask Mexicans for ID.

  • ¢||

    biometric information, such as a fingerprint

    Ooh! I want the one with a slide of jizz in it.

  • Tim||

    Does it give 5% cash back?

  • ||

    No. It's 37.8 "cash take."

  • MNG||

    A stupid and frightening move. I guess it's not so bad after the conservatives in Hiibel opening the door widely for governments to force you to identify yourself, but this card is a terrible idea for many reasons.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Funny how Dems are against showing ID when voting, yet they are proposing a national ID card. Yep, consistency!

  • ||

    Groups of people (unions) deserve first amendment protection, while groups of people (corporations) do not. What's inconsistent about that?

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    +3 damage! His armor is weak... go for the kill!

  • ||

    California totally deregulated the power industry! They left price controls and power caps in place, but anyone who says that's not deregulation is hyper-partisan and gulity of a "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

  • ||

    "The cardholder's identity will be verified by matching the biometric identifier stored within the micro-processing chip on the card to the identifier provided by the cardholder that shall be read by the scanner used by the employer," states the Democratic legislative proposal.
    OFFS. Let's just go with the microchip implaned at birth and get it over with.
  • ||

    ^ HTML fail. ^
    ___________________________
    The filter here is beginning to piss me off. Apparently HTML up arrows aren't English script.

  • Amy Alkon||

    When I was a kid, reading tons of books about other countries, I used to think we were so superior in this country because nobody could ask us for our papers.

  • Parker||

    Um, have you gotten on a plane in the last decade?

  • ||

    You are not required to fly, but to support yourself you do need to work. So it's a little different.

  • Abdul||

    You're already required to present papers to get a job. It goes along with the I-9 form that you have to fill out.

    This law would just issue different papers that have RFID tags in 'em.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Can you re-read the first four words of her comment?

    The Russians by Hedrick Smith is now a sad commentary on modern America. Written in the mid 1970's, he talks about how incredulous the Russians were that Americans didn't have internal passports (and many other government "benefits" we now have) and wondered how we could get along without them.

    Obviously our politicians feel the same way as those confused Russians.

  • kinnath||

    Been stopped on the streets of Moscow and asked for my papers. Had coworkers stopped and detained until they coughed up 20 bucks.

    I never thought I would see stuff like that in our future here in the US, but it looks like it is inevitable now.

  • Arizona||

    [snicker]

  • ||

    OBEY

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Please don't quote Shephard Fairey in any context... He makes me nauseous.

  • Kolohe||

    P Brooks came to this thread to kick ass and chew bubblegum...and he's all out of gum.

  • Corduroy||

    I love that movie.

  • Ska||

    For a long time it was resisted by many groups, but now we live in a world where we take off our shoes at the airport and pull out our identification.

    So instead of thinking "we've really screwed the pooch on this one," we've decided to hit the nitrous button.

  • PicassoIII||

    Hmm .... whippets.

  • Ska||

    You know added the word button just to avoid a whippets joke....

    And I meant to write "screwed the pooch, Gordo."

  • ||

    Also apropos, "a pile of shit has a thousand eyes".

  • PicassoIII||

    And who says a button activated manifold can't be constructed for ... recreational purposes.
    *mad scientist grin*

    I suppose you could have used 'Nawz' but then i would be forced to mock the Fast&Furious; reference.

    Thumbs up to The Right Stuff tho

  • ||

    Woof?

    +1 for the double meaning.

  • ||

    the cardholder that shall be read by the scanner used by the employer

    Note to self: Buy Diebold.

  • ||

    Depends.

    Did they donate to the Democrats?

  • wingnutx||

    I thought they kept stealing elections for the Republicans.

  • ||

    Can we assume this is part of the Demos "hurry up offense" plan to jam as much destructive and idiotic shit as possible into the legislative pipeline before November?

  • ||

    Can we assume this is part of the Demos "hurry up offense" plan to jam as much destructive and idiotic shit as possible into the legislative pipeline before November they hand the baton to the GOP, who will then beat us with it?

  • LibertyBill||

    +1

  • Bill Clinton||

    pull out our identification

    Honey, here's all the ID you'll ever need.

  • Jersey Patriot||

    That was a perfectly good mouthful of coffee. Nicely done.

  • Monica||

    Mouthful, yes.

    Coffee, no.

  • ||

    Democratic leaders have proposed requiring every worker in the nation to carry a national identification card with biometric information, such as a fingerprint, within the next six years, according to a draft of the measure.

    Isn't there anyone in the White House to play Martin Anderson's role?
    I would like to suggest another way that I think is a lot better. It’s a lot cheaper. It can’t be counterfeited. It’s very light weight, and impossible to lose. It’s even water proof. All we have to do is tattoo an identification number on the inside of everybody’s arm.

  • ||

    All we have to do is tattoo an identification number on the inside of everybody’s arm.

    At birth.

  • ||

    You see the gold star is to show everyone that you're a good worker, that's all. Nothing to worry about, move along.

    GODWIN!!!!

  • Dr Duck||

    Excellent -- a Pynchon reference in the alt-text. Your efforts do not go unnoticed.

  • You won't hear it from Reason||

    Gee, all the outrage over Arizona, but no mention of this?

  • ||

    So,if I have this correct, the new law would make it a crime to recruit militia members, and is justified by the federal building bombing?

    Ummm...did they ever think that someone willing to kill hundreds of innocent people might not be deterred by this law? So stupid.

  • Jesse Walker||

    Thanks for the tip, Slap. I see you've added yet another name to your army of pseudonyms. I'll get to this story soon enough.

  • Sybil||

    If you spent as much time on the beat as you do perusing your server's ip logs, you'd have that story up by now, no?

  • Beezard||

    I love all those Dicovery/Nat Geo shows on Neo-Nazis that try and paint McVeigh's agenda as white supremacist. "You think those 12 klansmen that play dress up a few times a year and that live in the armpit of your state aren't a problem?" -Cut to clip of children being pulled from rubble

    Unfortunately, McVeigh was a libertarian. A sort of populist (and totally fucking deluded dipshit) form of libertarian, but politically not to far off from most of us here.

  • ||

    I'm self-employed...

    If I refuse to ask myself for a biometric card, will I be required to turn myself in?

  • ||

    I am also self-employed. The first question that came to my mind was, will I be required to buy the $500* scanner to verify I have the right to employ myself?
    *This price assumes the government gives me more than one producer to choose from, otherwise $5000.

  • ||

    Like it or not, there is simply no way that at some point in the near future all citizens will be required to at least own a national ID. Probably not a big deal, really, as much as it scares conservatives I've never really seen how carrying around state ID has caused anybody problems.

  • ||

    It should be obvious to everyone that we are the property of the state. It is standard practice in husbandry to tag the animals.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    So... what they're doing in Arizona, is okay now?

  • ||

    It is an important first step.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Either this is a troll... or you're serious, and either way it's sick and disgusting.

  • ||

    What's funny to me is that liberals weren't so sanguine during the reign of Dubya. But now govt can have as much power as it wants, because The Great Barack is in the White House.

    The Repubs likewise flop around depending on whether their boyz are in charge.

    Geez, can't any of them see that they're being played?

  • Corduroy||

    Uhhhh no.

  • ||

    But look at the point of THIS ID: to determine whether you get to work or not. Other possible choke points are, whether you get to pass between administrative sectors or not, whether you can get health care or not, and whether you can pass over the national border or not, in addition to the existing choke point of being legally permitted to drive a car or not.

    Whenever access to a particular key good, service, or "privilege" is contingent on having "your papers," those things become choke points that are inevitably used -- first for pure and noble purposes (public safety, national security), and later for routine reasons (payment of parking tickets, payment of child support), and still later for completely trumped-up reasons (conviction as a "sex offender" for having cartoon porn that depicts members of some protected group such as children, puppies, or whatever, etc.). This the often-repeated, seemingly inevitable trajectory of such things. "Kill it before it grows" is the most applicable wisdom for dealing with those policies.

  • ||

    The proposal is one of the biggest differences between the newest immigration reform proposal and legislation crafted by late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

    Considering what crappy legislation that last effort almost produced, this statement is especially foreboding.

  • Richard K. Jones||

    It is true that Arizona helped to defeat the REAL ID plan. However, I was in a Q&A with Janet Napolitano my first year of law school, and she explained that the reason for that was not some principled objection to the concept of a national ID, but simply because the feds weren't going to pay for implementation.

  • ||

    Yeah, it's amazing how many of those mandates the states have problems with until they're funded.

  • Dello||

    Optical Biometric Enrollment for You.

    OBEY!!

  • ||

    Holy shit. When they watched Demolition Man they were rooting for Dr. Coctow ("That's who you remind me of...an evil Mr. Rogers.") and his perfect society.

  • ||

    Downright scary when you think about it.

    Lou
    www.anon-vpn.se.tc

  • ||

    And enough with the stupid acronym-names for these bills! Even Soviet propaganda was not so crude.

  • Distinguished Gentleman||

    Everyday congress seems more like a group of diabolical supervillians. Seriously, does anybody support this outside of Washington?

  • almightyjb||

    they can Identify me from the rifling on my bullits.

  • ||

    I am just waiting for one of the Dems to announce that carrying the card will be 'optional'. It will be funny (in a painful sort of a way.)

  • kinnath||

    I can see the future: The biometric cards will be declared to be the property of the US government. Any attempts to alter or disable the card will be a felony.

  • ||

    "PUT ON THE GLASSES!"

  • ||

    Cripple Fight!

  • Draco||

    It really kills me to admit this, but I think Dan T. is finally right about something. If you think it's "fascist" to have a national ID card, then you are really saying that it is "fascist" to have a concept of citizenship at all. The ID card is simply a management tool, which helps the government easily identify the citizenship status of each person within our borders. If you accept the concept of citizenship then, unless you are a devotee of chaos, you must accept the idea of information systems which facilitate the categorization of people according to that citizen status. In other words, if there's anything for which it matters whether you are a citizen or not, there needs to be some cheap and easy mechanism to answer that question when it matters (say, at the welfare office). Most of us have driver's licenses, which facilitate the same management needs, but that hasn't led to jack booted thugs from the DMV with clipboards showing up at our homes in the middle of the night to check on our state-citizenship status, or our right to be sleeping in the beds we're sleeping in.

    I have an open mind about this though. If you disagree, don't just hate on me, but explain to me why I am wrong.

  • ||

    One thing to think about: have you noticed the way the feds manage databases? How effective they are at protecting personal data? It's awful.

    State IDs (and let's stop calling them "drivers licenses", they don't have a fucking thing to do with one's competence to drive an automobile) are repugnant to me as well. I think there has been less resistance to them because the individual states don't seem to be able to abuse them as much. (Can't say if that will always be true.)

  • Tman||

    In 2009 there were 439 data breaches resulting in the loss of personal identification information (social security #'s, etc.) for over 20 million people.

    That's in one year.

    The problem with security ID's (biometric and otherwise) is that you cannot guarantee the safety of the data, which means that inevitably you have counterfeit versions of the ID's that result in identity theft.

    Adding another National ID card to our growing portfolio of ID cards (SScard, Drivers license, passport, etc.) will not in any way solve the problem of identifying those who need to be identified.

  • ||

    You can't even expect your government to not clone your passport for covert operations.

  • Beezard||

    there needs to be some cheap and easy mechanism to answer that question when it matters (say, at the welfare office).

    Nothing made by the government is cheap and easy, have you ever been to a DMV? But they are good at making things mandatory. As far as I've seen, we've survived as a nation of citizens for 200 years without them, so I guess the onus is on supporters to tell me why we actually need them.

    that hasn't led to jack booted thugs from the DMV with clipboards showing up at our homes in the middle of the night to check on our state-citizenship status, or our right to be sleeping in the beds we're sleeping in.

    Yet. And it has led to the state being able to control other aspects of our lives by holding the "driving is a privilege not a right card". And they don't have to come to our homes, they'll just mail us something that says we owe them money or else.

  • ||

    And besides, do you really think the democrats would ever allow it to be used to deny a "social service"?

  • ||

    Probably not.

    But I would expect many on the right to want to use it a way that denies social services. A national ID has something to appeal to both parties.

  • Ringo||

    Everthing government touches turns to crap.

  • kinnath||

    Presumed alien until proven a citizen is fascist.

  • ||

    Draco, I would argue that it depends on one's definition of a citizen. Is the federal government the sovereign and the populace mere pawns here at the pleasure and for the convenience of the ruling class of bureaucrats.

    Or does the government exists at the pleasure of the people. It's very existence and authority derived from the powers inherent in the populace, a populace I might add, comprised of individuals.

    I would take the second view, obviously. And a national character built on the first premise is destined for tyranny. Maybe not a 1984 type tyranny, but maybe a soul sucking Huxleyian reality. A nation of tattle-tales.

    So in conclusion, I do not exist for the convenience of bureaucrats, I do not work a job for their livelihood, rather for my own. Furthermore if more people knew that the government derived its powers from a compact with the sovereign, a nation of individuals, they wouldn't dream of trying this crap. So, fuck all these tin-can tyrants and their bed wetting accomplices for thinking that making the government's job easier is worth an iota of liberty.

  • Beezard||

    So in conclusion, I do not exist for the convenience of bureaucrats, I do not work a job for their livelihood, rather for my own. Furthermore if more people knew that the government derived its powers from a compact with the sovereign, a nation of individuals, they wouldn't dream of trying this crap. So, fuck all these tin-can tyrants and their bed wetting accomplices for thinking that making the government's job easier is worth an iota of liberty.

    I would see to it that this was carved in marble somewhere...if you weren't a racist.

  • ||

    You have to ask yourself, first, why does the government NEED to know whether anyone is a citizen? To collect entitlement benefits or take advantage of other "citizen-only" programs? To serve on a jury or as a government official? To vote?

    Citizens get to do things that other people in the country don't. In my mind, such things should be limited to participation in and control of government. But in a totalitarian government (and by this, I mean a government that controls, or aspires to control, all facets of life, great and small), where nothing happens legitimately except by permission of the government, there is a real NEED to check on one's citizenship status almost every time one turns around, hence a real need for some kind of tamper-proof positive ID. Without it, the government would be hard-pressed to maintain itself AS a government, not to mention a totalitarian one.

    I hope everyone understands that every little new way that government "protects" us, or every new benefit that government "provides" for us, only increases government's need to manage and keep track of each and every one of us. Neither a welfare-state nor a security state (and all-too-often, a state morphs freely between one and the other) is conducive to freedom. If we value freedom, we must minimize the amount of welfare-state benefits we provide, and the amount of "security" we purchase.

  • Beezard||

    With all this stupid, blatantly unconstitutional, awful precedent-setting legislation whizzing about, I'd like to propose my own:

    Let's create a fourth branch of government, a citizen's directorate, imbued with the power to immediately and publicly guillotine any public official who comes up with said legislation.

    A) it'll work.
    B) nothing could possibly go wrong.

    (As I am not a public official, I cannot be guillotined for proposing the guillotine idea. However, I am seeking and will accept the nomination for Grand Libertarian -the firstest among equals-of the nation, and as such, would accept the terrible responsibility of being the one who chooses the weekly candidates for The Big Chop -reality TV series copyright pending)

  • ||

    I gotcher Real ID right here!

  • ||

    This is no surprise. Illegals don't have paperwork that identifies them as such, therefore to prevent them from working you need the process of elimiation. You make the legals get an ID, such as the one here, and if you can't present it, your not legal to work. This isn't an idea that just the democrats like. I'm sure the rabid anti-illegal crowd will support it. If not, they are not that serious about solving the problem.

    It boils down to this, is the illegal immigration problem large enough to warrant this solution?

  • ||

    Not like all employers of illegals get hand out a I-9 either. I doubt people getting temp day laborers are interested in checking. So you can also expect a crackdown on the freedom to hire anyone for a few hours.

  • kinnath||

    So I have to scan the ID card of the neighborhood kids that come to shovel my driveway.

  • ||

    I wouldn't be surprised. The feds and many anti-illegals are trying to force people to prove the negative. How do you prove the kid's is not an illegal?

    Perhaps it might become illegal to for the kids to offer their services with the right government approval. We've already seen an increase in that.

    I'm expecting a lot of stupidity in the name of doing something about the illegal immigration problem.

  • ||

    ""offer their services with the right government approval""

    That should say, without the right government approval.

  • kinnath||

    There are so many Iowegians around. How will I ever know if they are all legit?

  • ||

    If they are not legit, they're crazy.

    No one in his right mind would admit to Iowa residency if not required to.

    ;P

  • kinnath||

    At least it's not Arizona.

    And we don't have any cities big enough to support rampant corruption like Chicago.

  • ||

    ""There are so many Iowegians around. How will I ever know if they are all legit?""

    You'll figure it out.

  • ||

    "carry a national identification card with biometric information."
    Does that include c*ck size? Cuz that would be great!!! you could just flash your card at the ole singles bar and pick up chicks (glances down at crotch - Oh OH!!!) NO, NO - that would be bad!!! Very, VERY BAD!!!!!!

  • ||

    ""Does that include c*ck size?""

    lol. And the TSA may stamp liar on your ID after they do a body scan.

  • ||

    Actually, a LOL stamp would suffice.

  • ||

    L
    O
    L

  • Fucking Retard||

    If Bush was doing this I would be a-ok with it...durrrrrr

    http://www.balloon-juice.com/2.....nt-1730776

  • Robert||

    If you look at the requirements for employers to fill out form I-9 for new hires, it's not much different from a national ID card. It's just that you now have a few choices (like the old Chinese family dinner menus, 1 from column A or 1 each from columns B & C) of documents to present, almost all of which have to be gov't-supplied. This would narrow it down to a single document which would at least be more convenient.

  • ||

    Democrats propose a national ID card for employment to verify that the holder has the right to be working in this country, and that's OK. But when proposals call for an ID to verify that the holder has the right to vote, Democrats howl that it is an attack on basic civil liberties and is designed to suppress the vote.

    Oh, I get it. Democrats don't care about suppressing access to work -- just voting.

    Since the national ID card will have to have the person's citizenship status (e.g. "guest worker visa expires "), then I propose we use the national ID card for access to state services, free medical clinics, and voting booths. And then watch Democrats kill their own proposal.

  • Rhywun||

    Well, then you would have to pass additional laws denying life-saving services (at the extreme end) to guests/illegals. I don't think that would get a lot of support.

    On the other hand, I would support some sort of system which differentiated between folks who are just here for a job, and those who wanna stay. No voting or social services for the former, citizen-equivalent services for, and more demands from, the latter (well, no voting of course - I totally agree only citizens should vote) - as long as they're paying their taxes and stuff. I don't have the details yet, but it would at least accommodate the two major reasons illegals are here, and hopefully lessen the tension in Arizona et al. Because the current one-size-fits-all system just sucks ass in so many ways. It doesn't demand anything of "chain migrants" while completely fucking over wannabe Americans who don't happen to win the lottery or be a relative of someone who's already here.

  • MrTheHorse||

    I think this is a great idea.

    Illegal immigrants will no longer be able to get jobs, and they'll all have to go back to Mexico.

  • Rhywun||

    I'm curious why that's so great. There are other solutions (read any immigration thread here) which maximize personal freedom without resorting to tribal animosity. Or if it's just that... well whatever.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement