So, instead we have an extremely crappy national ID in form of SSN cards, but I'm fairly certain that same crowd would also be happy to end social security - so at least they're consistent.
So, instead we have an extremely crappy national ID in form of SSN cards, but I'm fairly certain that same crowd would also be happy to end social security - so at least they're consistent.
- Applying for university
- Managing my student loan
- Registering a company
- Delivering taxes
- Changing health provider options
All online (various different services). This is in Norway. Actually the electronic state ID systems supports multiple identity providers, I mostly use the one from my bank. Which them also covers all my banking needs.
With current technology there's no technical or practical (other than inertia) reason federal services couldn't use state IDs. There's only 50 states, not N states. A 50-case switch wouldn't be that bad. ID requirements between states aren't so disparate that you couldn't get a good enough mapping.
The biggest hurdle to ANY effective ID system for individual people is that ID is a composite key. There are many Joe Smiths in the US. There are many Joe Smiths in a state. There are probably a handful of Joe smiths with the same birth date. There are possibly multiple Joe Smiths born on the same day that look similar and share a zip code.
People don't have unique identifiers other than DNA and even then if you don't do a good job processing it you're not guaranteed accuracy and I don't think we're at a point where we trust any .gov with that level of info about us.
So far we've been able to squeak by with just using really ugly composite keys.
And yes, State + State ID is a decent substitute for a national ID. Because it is a national ID. Except that some states will implement it in the shittiest way possible, and so we end up with even more of a lowest common denominator than if the states negotiated a standard.
And one could reasonably make the case that in this day and age, IDs fall under the Commerce Clause.
Here's the ugly truth: People are objecting to a national ID because it's an easy-to-parrot talking point. The rational objections are on thin ground. (Basically, the downsides are already existing anyways, we're just not getting the upsides. Because ideological purity. Yes, I mean you, ACLU)
And if the USA had national ID it would be used to harass BME citizens ala Sherif Joe
Look, when the ACLU is against national IDs you have to at least admit that the idea is worth discussing. https://www.aclu.org/other/5-problems-national-id-cards
They represent both the best (a strong belief in an ideal of humanity, and a fervent desire to make the world a fair and open place) and the worst (ideological purity über alles) of the left.
And I say that as a card-carrying ACLU member :)