I never understood why "conservatives" weren't up in arms over E-Verify. This is effectively a system that gives the executive branch the ability to stop anyone in the country from getting a job.
Even with all the passive NSA spying in the news, it is hard to imagine a system that more fundamentally conflicts with traditional american values than one that lets the president determine who and who is not eligible to support themselves and their family.
Even if we assume it will never be used for political gain in the style of gerrymandering or direct persecution, just having an unreasonably high accuracy rate of 99.99% that means 1 out of 10,000 will find the government interfering with their ability to get a job. Meanwhile any person seeking to circumvent the system will probably find it easy enough since the security on all of the data sources is so varied - you just need one low-paid clerk in one town willing to put bogus entries in their system and it will feed up to E-Verify.
> I never understood why "conservatives" weren't up in arms over E-Verify. This is effectively a system that gives the executive branch the ability to stop anyone in the country from getting a job.
_Most_ first-world countries already implement this, mostly without disastrous effects.
The strongest argument against this is probably that the US has unusually bad institutions - a more powerful argument in light of PRISM, etc. But it's not the case that a National ID card is indicative of instant tyranny.
Albania, Argentina, Belarus... am I looking at the right list? OK, some first-world countries are mixed in there too, but the entire list is hardly a source of inspiration.
Many first world countries are absent from that list, as well as all developed Common Law countries (e.g. UK, Australia, Canada, etc). I don't think US should be on that list either. While a National ID is indeed not an instant tyranny, it may well be a step in that direction.
I'm sure that having an id could make tyranny easier, but after moving from a country using ids to one without them, I see lots of very simple issues. Apparently just picking up my mail would enable someone to change/cancel my utilities. Or to start a credit in my name. Or to get my credit report. All without a single picture id. In my home country that would not be possible. Here, I'm told that having a bank statement letter or a utility bill is a way to prove your identity. To me as a developer that's just crazy.
To make it worse, common documents like European driving license are sometimes rejected because they don't have labels in local language (that's why field numbers always match up!!!). So that's it, I really don't get why people don't want a common id for their own benefit. Tyranny can be there with or without ids.
Yes - it is the case that most countries that implement National ID aren't first world, because most countries aren't first world. It's also the case that most first-world countries implement national ID. A list of countries with literacy rates over 80% would have a similar distribution.
I've been trying to get an answer from my Congressman, Steve Stockman (TX-36) about his views on this measure, with no luck so far. He's very against government databases when it comes to gun registration, but when it comes to something related to immigration, he suddenly goes silent...
Tell him that you want him to oppose it because you think it will make it easier for less enlightened states to create gun databases. Or even better; make it easier to create a national gun database.
It doesn't matter if you think that is actually true, or think that would be a problem.
> requiring all employers to confirm the identity and legal status of any new workers by tapping into a Homeland Security Department system called E-Verify, which is now used voluntarily by about 7 percent of employers in the United States.
This is where it's all been tending for some time anyway.
> within four years all employers would have to electronically submit information gathered from new employees, including citizens, to confirm that they are eligible to work in the United States.
Luckily, there'll be a lot fewer jobs in four years so no one will need to use it. /snark
Driver's licenses have been made to be like a national ID. We used to be able to get multiple driver's licenses from different state, but not anymore after the Real ID Act. Some states used to issue DL without photo but not anymore.
Both of those things were long gone before Real ID. You might have been able to get away with multiple licenses because they didn't check with the other states but it was still illegal.
Can someone explain how Nat'l IDs are awful? Not having ID seems to be more bothersome (think about all the voting "scandals" because using some form of ID (such as driver's license) ends up disenfranchising people).
Even with all the passive NSA spying in the news, it is hard to imagine a system that more fundamentally conflicts with traditional american values than one that lets the president determine who and who is not eligible to support themselves and their family.
Even if we assume it will never be used for political gain in the style of gerrymandering or direct persecution, just having an unreasonably high accuracy rate of 99.99% that means 1 out of 10,000 will find the government interfering with their ability to get a job. Meanwhile any person seeking to circumvent the system will probably find it easy enough since the security on all of the data sources is so varied - you just need one low-paid clerk in one town willing to put bogus entries in their system and it will feed up to E-Verify.