6 ms·

If you are an American, you already have a federally issued ID it just isn’t very good. If you are an American who has traveled internationally you have at leas

If you are an American, you already have a federally issued ID it just isn’t very good. If you are an American who has traveled internationally you have at least two distinct federally issued IDs, which can get out of sync and cause a huge headache. At least 3 if you ever interacted with the IRS, 4 if you have a KTN, 5 if you have a TSA redress number… There are plenty of places where just a drivers license isn’t acceptable (getting a passport for instance) and requires you to play the stupid 1/2 from category A/B game. I agree that bringing up voting is a red herring, that’s a state thing and the several states should solve that for themselves. The US federal government needs a unified ID system which was designed as a robust, centralized ID system that can then be mandated for federal agencies to use.

notch656a 4y ago
Voting ID rules isn't just a state thing. On June 17, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that states cannot require proof of citizenship in cases of voter registration for federal elections unless the state receives federal or court approval to do so. That is the feds have said the states can't just solve that for themselves. The state I live in (Arizona) requires proof your presence is authorized to get state ID. If you are a citizen, that means proof of citizenship. But then loop back to supreme court decision above.
- Godel_unicode 4y ago
  Edit: firstly, this is a distraction (i.e. a red herring) from the debate about national IDs. We have a national ID issue which needs to be fixed. That ruling doubles down on it being a state thing by saying leave citizenship (which is a federal thing) out of it. If a state creates for itself a catch-22, that is the states fault and is therefore the states responsibility to fix. Arizona needs to stop shirking it’s responsibility to its residents and come up with a solution to this problem, just like virtually every other state has.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - kelnos 4y ago
    What's the solution, though? I live in California, and my state-issued ID doesn't say anything about my US citizenship. When I registered to vote (online), I had to certify that I was eligible to vote. Yes, the penalties for lying are steep, but if the state can't verify if I'm lying or not, how will I get caught? If SCOTUS says states can't require proof of citizenship for voter registration, how can they exclude non-citizens from voter rolls? The state hasn't created a catch-22; the federal judiciary has told the states that they effectively can't use citizenship as a requirement for voting. I feel like I'm missing something here, because this can't be the state of things. > We have a national ID issue which needs to be fixed. What issue is this? Why do we need a national ID? What purpose would one serve? Plenty of Americans go through their lives just fine without any sort of federally-issued ID. Pretty much all you have to do is never travel outside the US, and many Americans don't.
    - Godel_unicode 4y ago
      > What purpose would one serve? Aside from the hundreds of other cost-and-convenience reasons, eliminating the SSN (and associated fraud) would be easily worth it on its own. Even if it were true that plenty of people get through life without a federal ID, that doesn’t mean all do. As I have said other places in this thread, the rickety machinery of federal identity replication grinds up plenty of people.
  - marssaxman 4y ago
    > We have a national ID issue which needs to be fixed. What is that issue? It is not apparent to me that REAL ID solves a real problem.
    - Godel_unicode 4y ago
      Who said anything about REALID solving the national ID problem? We need to replace SSNs with a modern identity system.
bmitc 4y ago
> If you are an American who has traveled internationally you have at least two distinct federally issued IDs, which can get out of sync and cause a huge headache. What IDs are you referring to and what’s the headache? Presumably one ID is a passport. From your first sentence, I would assume the second ID is a social security number, but how does it become “out of sync” with a passport?
- iudqnolq 4y ago
  They could mean name changes
- Godel_unicode 4y ago
  I know people who have spent literally years trying to correct misspellings and incorrect DOB issues with State and SSA. Get a passport as a minor, change your name as an adult, realize SSA has your wrong bday, descend into bureaucracy hell as now both name and DOB don’t match.
  - bmitc 4y ago
    As far as I can tell, birth certificates are issued by states and name changes are done through states, so it isn’t clear to me how a name is a federally issued ID or even an ID. While I am sure the bureaucracy surrounding such discrepancies is enormous, I’m not for sure I understand how it relates to a discussion about national IDs. A passport is effectively an optional national ID, so none of these issues would be solved by a national ID.
    - proser 4y ago
      It's worse than that. Birth certificates are issued at the country level.
      - Godel_unicode 4y ago
        Except where they aren’t.
      - 4y ago
kelnos 4y ago
> If you are an American, you already have a federally issued ID it just isn’t very good. What ID is that? If you're talking about a Social Security Card, that's not ID at all. I don't think I would call it "ID but not very good", even. Ultimately there are a lot of people who go through life in the US who never have a federally-issued ID at all. Simply never traveling outside the US will do it for most people. And there are more people than you'd expect in the US who never leave the country. Also agree re: voting: elections are administered by states, so a federal ID is just not even necessary here. States are perfectly capable of issuing ID, as we all know. (Granted, drivers licenses and non-driving state IDs usually don't have anything to say about citizenship status. A state-issued ID serves as authentication, not authorization, where voting is concerned.)
- Godel_unicode 4y ago
  In what way is your social security card not an ID? It is used as a credential to identify yourself, and is one of very few such identifiers that most organizations take (i.e. I can use it to get many other IDs). Many state DMVs list it on a page called “identity documents”. All Americans have been issued their card at least once, and more to the point not having the card doesn’t mean you don’t have the ID as many people will take the number. It’s a very weak ID for a lot of reasons, but that fact alone doesn’t make it not one. It just makes it a dangerous one. Why are you against having a good one?
  - andrewflnr 4y ago
    Functionally, a social security number is closer to an alternate name than an ID. It doesn't contain evidence that can feasibly be used to prove that the person showing it to you is who they claim to be, the way the picture/physical descriptors on a photo ID card do. And it's not even an unpredictable name, so you can't even treat it the way you would a long unpredictable token in a security context.
    - Godel_unicode 4y ago
      > social security number is closer to an alternate name `s/is/should be/` If I have your social security card I can pretend to be you quite effectively as many people will accept it as an ID. They don’t care that you don’t think it is one. The ones that don’t will frequently take an alternative (read: derived) that I can get with just it. > It doesn't contain evidence that can feasibly be used to prove… Yes. We agree, it’s a bad ID.

notch656a 4y ago

Voting ID rules isn't just a state thing. On June 17, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that states cannot require proof of citizenship in cases of voter registration for federal elections unless the state receives federal or court approval to do so. That is the feds have said the states can't just solve that for themselves. The state I live in (Arizona) requires proof your presence is authorized to get state ID. If you are a citizen, that means proof of citizenship. But then loop back to supreme court decision above.

Godel_unicode 4y ago
Edit: firstly, this is a distraction (i.e. a red herring) from the debate about national IDs. We have a national ID issue which needs to be fixed. That ruling doubles down on it being a state thing by saying leave citizenship (which is a federal thing) out of it. If a state creates for itself a catch-22, that is the states fault and is therefore the states responsibility to fix. Arizona needs to stop shirking it’s responsibility to its residents and come up with a solution to this problem, just like virtually every other state has.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- kelnos 4y ago
  What's the solution, though? I live in California, and my state-issued ID doesn't say anything about my US citizenship. When I registered to vote (online), I had to certify that I was eligible to vote. Yes, the penalties for lying are steep, but if the state can't verify if I'm lying or not, how will I get caught? If SCOTUS says states can't require proof of citizenship for voter registration, how can they exclude non-citizens from voter rolls? The state hasn't created a catch-22; the federal judiciary has told the states that they effectively can't use citizenship as a requirement for voting. I feel like I'm missing something here, because this can't be the state of things. > We have a national ID issue which needs to be fixed. What issue is this? Why do we need a national ID? What purpose would one serve? Plenty of Americans go through their lives just fine without any sort of federally-issued ID. Pretty much all you have to do is never travel outside the US, and many Americans don't.
  - Godel_unicode 4y ago
    > What purpose would one serve? Aside from the hundreds of other cost-and-convenience reasons, eliminating the SSN (and associated fraud) would be easily worth it on its own. Even if it were true that plenty of people get through life without a federal ID, that doesn’t mean all do. As I have said other places in this thread, the rickety machinery of federal identity replication grinds up plenty of people.
- marssaxman 4y ago
  > We have a national ID issue which needs to be fixed. What is that issue? It is not apparent to me that REAL ID solves a real problem.
  - Godel_unicode 4y ago
    Who said anything about REALID solving the national ID problem? We need to replace SSNs with a modern identity system.

bmitc 4y ago

> If you are an American who has traveled internationally you have at least two distinct federally issued IDs, which can get out of sync and cause a huge headache. What IDs are you referring to and what’s the headache? Presumably one ID is a passport. From your first sentence, I would assume the second ID is a social security number, but how does it become “out of sync” with a passport?

iudqnolq 4y ago
They could mean name changes
Godel_unicode 4y ago
I know people who have spent literally years trying to correct misspellings and incorrect DOB issues with State and SSA. Get a passport as a minor, change your name as an adult, realize SSA has your wrong bday, descend into bureaucracy hell as now both name and DOB don’t match.
- bmitc 4y ago
  As far as I can tell, birth certificates are issued by states and name changes are done through states, so it isn’t clear to me how a name is a federally issued ID or even an ID. While I am sure the bureaucracy surrounding such discrepancies is enormous, I’m not for sure I understand how it relates to a discussion about national IDs. A passport is effectively an optional national ID, so none of these issues would be solved by a national ID.
  - proser 4y ago
    It's worse than that. Birth certificates are issued at the country level.
    - Godel_unicode 4y ago
      Except where they aren’t.
    - 4y ago

kelnos 4y ago

> If you are an American, you already have a federally issued ID it just isn’t very good. What ID is that? If you're talking about a Social Security Card, that's not ID at all. I don't think I would call it "ID but not very good", even. Ultimately there are a lot of people who go through life in the US who never have a federally-issued ID at all. Simply never traveling outside the US will do it for most people. And there are more people than you'd expect in the US who never leave the country. Also agree re: voting: elections are administered by states, so a federal ID is just not even necessary here. States are perfectly capable of issuing ID, as we all know. (Granted, drivers licenses and non-driving state IDs usually don't have anything to say about citizenship status. A state-issued ID serves as authentication, not authorization, where voting is concerned.)

Godel_unicode 4y ago
In what way is your social security card not an ID? It is used as a credential to identify yourself, and is one of very few such identifiers that most organizations take (i.e. I can use it to get many other IDs). Many state DMVs list it on a page called “identity documents”. All Americans have been issued their card at least once, and more to the point not having the card doesn’t mean you don’t have the ID as many people will take the number. It’s a very weak ID for a lot of reasons, but that fact alone doesn’t make it not one. It just makes it a dangerous one. Why are you against having a good one?
- andrewflnr 4y ago
  Functionally, a social security number is closer to an alternate name than an ID. It doesn't contain evidence that can feasibly be used to prove that the person showing it to you is who they claim to be, the way the picture/physical descriptors on a photo ID card do. And it's not even an unpredictable name, so you can't even treat it the way you would a long unpredictable token in a security context.
  - Godel_unicode 4y ago
    > social security number is closer to an alternate name `s/is/should be/` If I have your social security card I can pretend to be you quite effectively as many people will accept it as an ID. They don’t care that you don’t think it is one. The ones that don’t will frequently take an alternative (read: derived) that I can get with just it. > It doesn't contain evidence that can feasibly be used to prove… Yes. We agree, it’s a bad ID.