PRINTReal ID? Real Problem
National ID card causes fuss among politicos
Stock.xchng
February 14, 2008 | 12:00 a.m. CST
Unconstitutional wiretaps? Check. Weakening the basic right of habeas corpus? Check. How about the ability of the government to know exactly where you are at all times? They’re working on that, or at least Big Brother in Washington is.
The Real ID Act of 2005 — which has already made its way through Congress and was authorized by President Bush — is stirring up controversy among state governments and American citizens who feel it violates both their privacy and personal liberty. As a reaction, state governments are voicing their opposition to the invasive legislation. The expected implementation of the Real ID in 2011 means the U.S. would put forth its first ID card with national standards.
The Real ID Act was attached to a long list of seemingly unrelated proposals in one bill called the “Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005.” The crux of the bill was to give money to soldiers and to provide relief to the parts of Asia that were devastated by the 2005 tsunami. It’s easy to understand why it would be difficult to vote against such a bill; it passed through the Senate with unanimous approval.
Just like the Patriot Act, the Real ID Act is supposed to help our government fight the war on terror and provide additional homeland security. It will also work against illegal immigration because all persons applying for a Real ID must provide a photo ID, date of birth, Social Security number and current address. These regulations are similar to the current requirements for an ID card in most states, including Missouri.
This national ID card would be required to board any commercial airline flight, enter any federal building or nuclear power plant and could potentially be required to drive a motor vehicle or hold a job.
“I think that this will soon be expanded — if this is not stopped — to require you to show the Real ID card when you open a bank account, participate in any federal program like Social Security, Medicare, which would almost affect everyone,” says state Rep. Jim Guest, R-King City. “If you read the act, the Department of Homeland Security has total control. There is no judicial and there is no legislative oversight.”
Personal Privacy Debate
There is no need to fear the government just yet. Citizens as well as state governments have voiced their opposition to the Real ID Act. Guest is the founder of Legislators Against Real ID, a Web site that tracks which states have taken steps against the act. Twenty states, including Missouri, have already passed legislation opposing it, and 41 have introduced such measures.
Of course, the federal government could simply make the Real ID Act too attractive to pass up. “They could figure out some way to get it passed,” says state Rep. Kenneth Jones, R-California. “I don’t think it will be (implemented) if the majority of the people were educated about what it really is. It is just another form of governmental intervention into our freedom.”
Not everyone is convinced, however, that the Real ID is as dangerous as some make it out to be. “Every (industrialized) country I can think of has some form of national identification card,” says Marvin Overby, professor of political science at MU. “In many ways it would make life much, much simpler if we had a federal ID card. We could vote anywhere, we wouldn’t have to worry about going and standing in line at the DMV every time you move from state to state.”
But Overby acknowledges the concern. “It hits that nerve in the American knee that says, ‘We don’t trust the government,’” he says. “I don’t think that, if people really sat down to think about it, they would believe at the end of the day that a national ID is a real danger.” He also believes it is ironic that people are more willing to give their personal information to businesses such as Wal-Mart or Citibank than to the federal government.
Guest is still skeptical. “They are going to copy all your information, put it in a digital data file and share this with all other states,” he warns. “The Department of Homeland Security thinks maybe we should share this globally. I think that’s going extremely too far.”
— BRIAN DOTY
