You are not a citizen and you don't vote in U.S. elections. It is irrelevant what you think and the U.S. government is not beholden to what you want.
His problem is more that he seems to believe his (and all others') country's ID system is somehow impervious to abuse (despite being imperfect by his own admission). The more centralized things are, the less you have to hack to do a takeover. The less centralized things are, the easier it is to accumulate supporting evidence for a takeover. It's a necessarily complicated system that has certain holes, and the main thing that would've helped in this case was more benefit of the doubt for the person who was up against a lot of documentation.
That said, you’re contradicting yourself: am I saying my country’s system is impervious to abuse, or am I admitting that it is not?
My point is not that a central database of people makes identity theft a thing. My point is that by not having one (or any), you are making it a lot easier than it has to be.
In one country, this kind of abuse of identity happens all the time, and in others, it is exceedingly rare. Anyone should be able to draw their own conclusions from that.
I’m seeing a statistic online that says “33% of Americans Faced Some Form of Identity Theft at Some Point in Their Lives” — not sure if that’s accurate but it’s a scary number!
ID databases don't solve identity fraud.
That's not me contradicting myself, it's literally quoting you contradicting yourself. Because you've made both of those arguments.
At this point, you seem to have backed off basically all of your claims about your system actually being better, leaving me with the question of what point you're trying to make at all.
> not sure if that’s accurate but it’s a scary number!
Boy, you sound like you'd be a very educated voter, LOL.
I Googled "scandanavian id fraud rate" and got 36% for Finland and 45% for Sweden out of one of the top results. So what exactly are you on about?