5 ms·

I'm wholly opposed to a national ID scheme, but a national ID scheme would prevent stuff like this. We currently have no national registry of who, or who isn't

• walid 9y ago
  This is one of the truly American stupid statements that mean nothing to the rest of the world.
• e0 9y ago
  > Stuff like this is part of the price we pay for freedom I suppose. That's really easy to say when you (and, honestly, I) are not the ones paying that price.
• socalnate1 9y ago
  "Stuff like this is part of the price we pay for freedom I suppose." What an odd conclusion to draw from this. Do countries with national ID's not have freedom?
  • Aloha 9y ago
    They seem to have less freedom overall, theoretically - in any case, the American psyche has a well ingrained fear of big government, we fought a war over it, more or less - a war that we in part continue to fight amongst ourselves.
    • blacksmith_tb 9y ago
      Which war was that - the revolutionary war? I would suggest that was more about establishing our own 'big government' than being governed by England...
      • Aloha 9y ago
        One can argue that the revolutionary war was about the power of government. See the 3rd thru 10th amendments, specifically the 3rd and 4th. The war was as much about the question of what the powers of government ought to be as anything else.
        • ddxxdd 9y ago
          If you want to understand the motives of the Revolutionary War, look at the Articles of Confederation rather than the current Constitution.
          • dragonwriter 9y ago
            Or, better, the Declaration of Independence.
    • ssijak 9y ago
      Are you living in fairy land? Or in a bubble? How does USA citizen have more rights/freedom than for example Scandinavians?
      • whatshisface 9y ago
        The core idea of the American vision of rights is that rights against future governments matter just as much as rights against present ones. For example, a Democrat speaking in support of the DNC doesn't need free speech against a Democratic administration, but they would need it against a Republican one. That's the reason behind the "what if we need to rebel?" argument against gun control, the "turnkey tyranny" argument against self-surveillance, and the rest. American political philosophy will seem totally incomprehensible if you miss this point!
        • Aloha 9y ago
          Yes, this. In politics, you should never give yourself more power then you wish your opponent to have at some point in the future. Another is, a right by executive order isn't a right.
      • marcoperaza 9y ago
        A few ways: 1) Freedom of speech in the US is the most unrestricted in the world. "Hate speech" (or more accurately: whatever the current cultural consensus deems to be beyond the pale) is not an exception. 2) Protections for criminal defendants in the US are the greatest in the world: * No other country has a hard rule that excludes all illegally-collected evidence, and legally-collected evidence flowing from illegally-collected evidence, from trial. * More generally, we have very extensive rules of evidence that limit what can be admitted into court, to protect the rights of the criminally accused, and both sides of a civil case. The UK has similarly extensive rules, but the rest of Europe does not. * An absolute right to trial by jury for anything greater than a petty criminal charge. 3) The right to homeschool your children. This is essentially illegal in Sweden, Germany, and some other European countries.
        • Daishiman 9y ago
    • throwaway613834 9y ago
      >> Do countries with national ID's not have freedom? > They seem to have less freedom overall, theoretically I think you accidentally forgot to type a very long and well-cited essay in between those two lines?
    • dragonwriter 9y ago
      > in any case, the American psyche has a well ingrained fear of big government, we fought a war over it, more or less Kind of, though it was really more about the potential that central government would eventually act me way on one particular issue, but the side of big central government won that war. (We earlier fought a war against government without representation, but that's a different issue.)
      • Aloha 9y ago
        One can argue that the revolutionary war was as much about the power of government, as it was about representation. See the 3rd thru 10th amendments, specifically the 3rd and 4th. The question is not whether the government is federal, or more of a confederation, it was what the rights of that government, and the rights of the people ought to be.
        • dragonwriter 9y ago
          > See the 3rd thru 10th amendments, specifically the 3rd and 4th I'm not sure how Amendments to the Constitution which replaced the Articles of Confederation provide any evidence whatsoever about the purposes of the Revolutionary War (they provide evidence of the concerns that needed to be addressed as part of the massive centralization, relative to the AoC, that the Constitution represented, but that's a whole different issue.)
          • Aloha 9y ago
            The genesis of the bill of rights has more to do with how the British ran government in the colonies, and dealt with dissenting opinion than with just the concerns of the anti-federalists. Specifically in re the 3rd amendment.
    • Daishiman 9y ago
      What are you smoking?
  • irhd 9y ago
    Some Americans have an extremely narrow and odd definition of freedom. I've been told before I don't have freedom because I'm Canadian. Also the highest incarceration rate in the free world and an election system subject to massive corruption. But hey, no national ID is more indicative of freedom.
• nitwit005 9y ago
  Freedom from what, exactly? Clearly the government has made databases with citizen information, just poor ones. Why would a higher quality database where the key was some national ID number deprive you of freedom?
• rdtsc 9y ago
  > I'm wholly opposed to a national ID scheme Curious, why?
  • Aloha 9y ago
    Fear of tracking, loss of state sovereignty, another large federal bureaucracy that is difficult to deal with.
    • rdtsc 9y ago
      > Fear of tracking There is already pervasive tracking I am afraid. Having a smartphone, social accounts, banking online, NSA running wild, face recognition tech tested in airports, traffic cameras. At this point, it seems an ID card wouldn't make much of a difference in that area. I have an ID card by being a citizen of another country, I just don't feel like I am somehow tracked more or less free because of it. > another large federal bureaucracy that is difficult to deal with I've seen state government being just as dysfunctional and I've seen other countries have even more bureaucratic governments. If they can do it, so can the federal government. In a way the social security card is already a broken and terrible ID, which is misused and causes billions of dollars in waste every year. So the ID is effectively there, it's just very bad and an in need of an update.
• jimktrains2 9y ago
  > but a national ID scheme would prevent stuff like this. If ICE wouldn't accept a passport, I doubt a national ID would have helped.
• mikeash 9y ago
  Stuff like this is the price we pay for oppression by overzealous immigration enforcement. The price for freedom in this instance would be less vigorous enforcement against illegal immigrants.