Roger L. Simon: Card Me Up!
We are spying on you.
No, I’m serious. Pajamas Media is spying on you, as is-assuming you have cookies enabled-nearly every other website you have visited in the last couple of years. At PJM we try to keep this snooping to a gentlemanly minimum but others, like Amazon, seem to know more about us than do our mothers. Then there are the credit card companies and the banks, the department stores and utilities and insurance companies, credit reports, stock brokers, internet providers, cable and satellite companies, the federal and state governments, social security, the IRS, Medicare and your mortuary. I could go on, but you get the point.
Privacy, to paraphrase the great Preston Sturges, is not only dead, it’s decomposed.
So what’s the big deal about a national ID card already?
I know, I know – plenty, say its critics on the right and left. It’s the slippery slope to Big Brother, never mind that every major European country has one except the UK, which seems to have every street corner under video surveillance anyway, and the Euros appear to have, roughly, the same freedom we do, even a bit more if you count being able to rocket from Paris to Amsterdam without bothering with customs.
Meanwhile, our whole country is being turned upside down by the immigration issue, a problem that cannot be resolved in any real way without knowing who is who. And we don’t. Not even close. That renders all solutions bogus, except for the one advocated by pure open border types who, it would seem, aren’t overly concerned with jihadists running around Chicago masquerading as undocumented workers from El Salvador as long as the world runs according to Milton Friedman.
And it’s not just potential terrorists. We are experiencing something of a crime wave -a rise anyway- and some of that comes from illegal alien criminals who should have been in jail, ours or somebody else’s. Newt Gingrich wrote a column the other day bemoaning some particularly gruesome killings of that nature in New Jersey. Even so, I am one of those who recognize the contribution to our society of undocumented workers. I happen to favor some form of amnesty for a certain number of illegal aliens under some circumstances. Too vague? Sorry. I can’t go further than that because I don’t know how many they are, where they are or who they are.
Rudy Giuliani has been advocating a tamper proof card to be carried by all foreign workers and students as long as they are in this country. Fine in principle, but I wonder how it works in practice. The authorities go up to someone and ask for their foreign ID card. The person says no, I’m a citizen and produces, say, a Nebraska state driver’s license. Citizen or alien? Who’s to say? Passports aren’t required. I see a nightmare in the offing. Furthermore, an anti-foreign atmosphere might be created that we won’t like unless… we are all, every last one of us – foreigners and nationals – required to have those tamper proof identity cards from the federal government. Yes, the federal government. Now I have said it.
And you are uneasy again. The government is incompetent, you say. So what? Who said the government should do the work itself? Outsource it to Oracle, Sun Microsystems, some Silicon Valley wizards. The technology of this sort of thing is advancing at a breakneck clip. The side benefit of this is that an advanced high tech card can replace, or at least displace, all those green cards and driver’s licenses we have been using as de facto ID cards and that are so easily counterfeited or stolen. Sure some super-hacker will figure out how to put my fingerprints on your card and vice-versa, but those cases will be nowhere near as common as the shenanigans we deal with now.
Well, okay you say. But anyway, it’s a trick. The government will use this information against us.
Why? They haven’t been using their knowledge against you now, have they, and they already have plenty. Among the more revealing bits of film I have seen lately is from Andrew Marcus’ footage at the recent YearlyKos Convention. A middle-aged Kossite couple was railing predictably against the Patriot Act and Andrew asked them gently if they knew of anybody who had actually been hurt by it. The couple looked blank. Of course they didn’t, because there have barely been any (amazing when you think we are a country of three hundred million). To cover up his ignorance, the husband alluded to some nameless victim we were all supposed to know-who, he didn’t say-and looked away. Obviously the couple didn’t know anything. They were just parroting a kind of stereotyped cultural paranoia. The kind of paranoia that says the government is automatically bad. It is no more automatically bad than it is automatically good. It is our government and we are a democracy. We get to supervise. And so far they have not run amuck. A national ID card would be easier to control than the Patriot Act because it deals in public information. It is not and should not be covert.
And here’s another potential benefit of the card. Right now, we all have literally dozens of supposedly authoritative files on each of us (see the second paragraph for just a few). Many of these are inaccurate and contradictory. Ever seen your credit report? Ever tried to get it corrected? I’m not saying a national ID card would or should be fixing that, but it could consolidate a lot of basic information that would then all be in one place with a simplified process for righting mistakes. Identity theft, currently a huge problem, would also become much more difficult.
Any further objections? I’m sure you’ll have some. But please, no ideology. Just practical considerations.
If not, sign me up, Big Brother. I’m ready for my card – today. Just as long as I’m able to airbrush my photo.
Oh yea, what the deal?
In many European countries people have ID’s for many years.
In Poland, for example, near the state border, citizens are obligated to carry their ID, because the Border Guard or police could ask any person to show them papers.
I Americans have so big concerns with illegal migration and trafficing, why did’t they go for it in Europen way?
If iris recognition is used (as shown in the picture), there is no need for a card. The person has only to look at the camera to be identified.
A legal requirement to carry a pass card is an infringement on civil liberties. You should be able to go anywhere without having to explain yourself to the police.
Oh, just I forget to add: “A New Europe way”.
The old Europe is rather example how NOT to deal with migration, both legal and illegal.
I see no substantive difference between an ID card or a retinal scan, in terms of civil liberties. Say I have sunglasses on. The authoraties will tell me to remove them so they can scan me. I think I’d rather just pull out a card.
Good post. I’ve been a libertarian-leaning conservative all my life. This is one of those issues that reminds me why I’m not a pure liberterian.
I don’t have a problem per se with ID cards or, in theory, with the government knowing stuff about me. The problem I have is that the government is almost certain to mislay this information and allow other people, criminals, people I disagree with etc. to get this information.
The other problem I have is that I don’t see that ID cards solves the security problem. In fact it may make it worse because people instinctively trust the official government ID without worrying about whether it was forged or fraudulently obtained.
Oh and there’s the mission creep issue inherent in almost all security discussions. I blogged about this recently
“In fact it may make it worse because people instinctively trust the official government ID without worrying about whether it was forged or fraudulently obtained.”
Your fear is not even slightly legitimate. One will be easily able to verify the information listed on the I.D. card. This is, for instance, what a police officer does every time they stop a motorist. It takes only moments for them to find out whether the driver’s license is real or not.
In the world of Auto ID, biometrics are best for a high degree of certainty (high 98%+) and low rejection rates.
Retinal is not the only way to insure a good biometric without having the usual negatives associated with the more common fingerprint database issues of privacy.
Korea has a technology that analyses the vein pattern under infrared light on the back of ones hand and returns a 99%+ ID with the lowest rejection rate in the industry. This is nearly DNA level ID in less than on-half of a second. This method is less invasive as well.
The reason one needs an ID card is to act as the final match in authenticating the official nature of the person being identified.
Good Post!
I agree with a national ID.The more advanced the system used the better.I would even agree to a DNA database of US citizens.If you have nothing to hide what is the problem.
Roger, the major issue in my mind — as a computer and other security guy — is not what licit uses the ID card could be put to, but the illicit.
First off, the government doesn’t have any better record for maintaining data privately than anyone in the private sector, and arguably worse. A single common ID and the database needed to back it up raises the risk of illicit disclosure a lot.
Second, by having a unified ID card, the ability of a malicious agent to make trouble is much magnified. See, for example, John Brunner’s Shockwave Rider, which has several scenes in which malicious users cause real trouble for real people by hacking national ID databases. A national ID, needed for employment, makes it possible for a rogue individual to make someone else suddenly unemployable; look into the stories about people who have been falsely identified in the NCIC if you aren’t aware of how hard it can be to correct this kind of problem.
Third, and perhaps most worrisome,. is the possibility that this could be used not by a rogue individual, but by a government program with the Common Good (which is always defined as “whatever will pull votes in a contested election”) at heart. For example, can’t you imagine MADD lobbying that anyone who has a DUI should have their ID restricted? Or “deadbeat dad” activists? Or Bill O’Reilly and MSNBC, against “child predators”? This is admittedly a “slippery slope” argument, but given recent history, is it sufficiently unrealistic not to be a concern?
Good points in this post, but how come no pictures of Mick Jagger since you stole his title?
When I read this article early this morning, I thought many Pajamas readers would object to the idea of a national ID (not libertarian and all that). I see few have objected, which leads me to believe that this is an idea whose time has come.
“This is admittedly a “slippery slope” argument, but given recent history, is it sufficiently unrealistic not to be a concern?”
I also worry about getting into my car. Accidents are always possible. Still, it’s a risk that is worth taking.
See Bruce Schneier’s comments, particularly this summary: It doesn’t really matter how well a Real ID works when used by the hundreds of millions of honest people who would carry it. What matters is how the system might fail when used by someone intent on subverting that system: how it fails naturally, how it can be made to fail, and how failures might be exploited.
National ID is a lousy idea.
“The first problem is the card itself. No matter how unforgeable we make it, it will be forged. We can raise the price of forgery, but we can’t make it impossible. Real IDs will be forged.”
Bruce Schneier is grossly exaggerating. The employer or government official can quickly verify the I.D. What in heck do you think we do now? A police officer checks the validity of your license when they stop your car—normally within a few seconds!
I clicked on the Schneier link above and found a rather boring and unconvincing recitation of the obvious. Of course some IDs will be forged. (yawn). It seems clear however that the barrier will be much higher than it is with the many IDs already in circulation. A national ID doesn’t seem so “lousy” to me, as a previous commenter wrote. It is certainly worth exploring.
David, I am not Bruce’s biggest fan, but he and I are in the same business, and I can tell you that simply discounting him is a fool’s errand.
Nor is he alone in having these concerns: other top people in security, like Whit Diffie, have similar concerns.
As to this point:
Bruce Schneier is grossly exaggerating. The employer or government official can quickly verify the I.D. What in heck do you think we do now? A police officer checks the validity of your license when they stop your car—normally within a few seconds!
I think your ignorance of some of the existing problems is showing. Happens I had a little trouble with this just last year: a name confusion that left me getting patted down, and damn near had me getting arrested, for someone else’s warrant.
Now, do you have any idea how may, say, Manuel Garcia’s there are in the US?
The easiest way to turn this issue into a win-win is to rename the ‘national ID card.’
Instead, designate it a ”Citizen’s Right to Vote Card.” People would covet it then.
Use it in conjunction with a PIN number to verify the holder, and eliminate fraudulent cards.
And citizens of other countries who are here under questionable status would get the proper message, loud and clear.
the Euros appear to have, roughly, the same freedom we do
*cough*
While I agree with you regarding a National ID, I definitely would not go that far, especially regarding freedom of speech.
30 odd plus years ago, I opposed any such National ID card. I was (since ’72) then and now a libertarian, big L also.
I can’t say that I hold to that early position now, WWIV and all. Now, I followed WWII at the time (born ’35), and I knew then that many liberties were ‘constrained’ (not meaning the Japanese internment camps, which should have been avoided). Though the German and Italian nationals (about 10,000 each) were interned for rather good cause.
Some Americans were put in fear of their lives due to their careless talk (yes, 1st amendment talk), in wartime. Some crapheaded Chicago journalist wrote about (and his idiot editors passed) a story about the Japanese diplomatic code being breached by the US. He was first fired and then threatened by the FBI. The editors peed their pants, FDR spoke harshly to their board.
So ID us all in a standard manner. The present system sucks big time.
“returns a 99%+ ID with the lowest rejection rate in the industry. This is nearly DNA level ID in less than on-half of a second. This method is less invasive as well.”
According to the papers I have read, iris recognition is much better than 99% and also much better than DNA. For example, it clearly distinguishes identical twins, which DNA does not.
I don’t think looking at a camera for a moment is very invasive.
“I would even agree to a DNA database of US citizens.If you have nothing to hide what is the problem.” – ethanthom
—-
The problem with the government having too much information in it’s database has to do with the fear that this information would be used to pressure and limit the freedoms we hold dear here in the US.
The freedoms may be part of the structure of our country but government power is relentless if it chooses to use it to limit ones freedoms … just look to the city of Calabasas and its laws that do not allow smoking in the out-of-doors!
If these 99%+ verifiable biometric databases are not misused – EVER – I am all for it.
Here is a technology we all can not run away from … 3-D Facial Recognition:
http://tinyurl.com/2j43rv
Second the idea that you should read John Brunner’s The Shockwave Rider, set in a culture where there are national IDs and the woes thereof.
National ID is accepted only by those who have not really thought about it. They are going to have to be non-unique and non-single. The undercover cop or person in Witness Protection, to make two easy examples, will need multiple IDs that cannot be linked.
Have you had your identity stolen? Imagine the woes of someone whose identity is canceled!
It’s kind of scary when I see people so casually give such power to their gov’t. These ‘ I.D. Cards ‘ are ‘cards’ in name only. Most people think of I.D. cards as pictures and words on a piece of paper. The huge storehouse of personal data contained in these cards, RF chips, etc..will make it that much easier for mischief to happen.
I don’t think most people are thinking beyond the extreme short-term time frame. Please pause to consider the unintended consequences (and the intended ones you haven’t thought of, yet).
The advent of the “national ID card” will mark the closing of the “American Frontier”.
That American Frontier were millions lost their former identities and started all over again, fresh, will forever cease to exist with the introduction of a “national ID card”.
I think people would feel better about the idea if a week could pass without a news report of some peoples data being stolen from a large database, or that the FBI took identify theft seriously.
We go through the hassle and expense of this and now the fakers only have one card-type to crack.
Government should prove it is responsible before asking for more responsibility.
Would people be required to have these cards with them at all times?
I often go places without my wallet, or I might leave this card at home due to not wanting to lose it.
Every time I hear another group pressuring government to outlaw some behavior, or distateful activity, or image, or anything else, I get nervous. Then the government complies.
Now I should trust the government to have all my information in one place? To be able to demand I present an ID every time I want o go somewhere, do something, make any sort of personal decision the government (not I) decide they should be involved in?
Get government out of my life, not into it. I’ll take my chances with the terrorists. They haven’t hurt me nearly as much.
I am still looking for a reasonable case for a national ID. How does it stop illegal activity again? When are all the illegals lining up to show someone an ID? Does that mean or imply that all our current forms of ID are invalid? If they are valid then why do we need the national ID? The problem is with the vast majority that will never be carded. People that are breaking the law tend to avoid law enforcement. How does an ID help with that? This looks like a huge, bureaucratic “cure” looking for a disease. It can be likened to people shredding all documents before disposal even though less than 1% of identity theft is from dumpster diving.
It’s fascinating to see so many conservative-”libertarians” clamoring for an expansion of the Federal government’s role in our lives.
To quote the line that is inevitably trotted out whenever the discussion turns to single-payer health care: “I’ve seen public housing — I’m not interested in public health care.”
Just because the ACLU is against something doesn’t necessarily mean you have to be reflexively in favor of it.
We have a national ID card and all adult citizens already carry it, the driver’s license. Getting, and renewing same means a nasty trip to DMV, lotta standing in line, lowlife bureaucrats get their jollies dissing you as you take unpaid time off work.
Let’s make that experience more charming. Forbid mail renewals, require birth certificates and passports, and three witnesses, notarized, plus fingerprints, DNA samples, blood types and a retinal scan. Plus whatever other Mickey Mouse the DMV can think up.
Does anyone really believe that some smart guys won’t forge the card and sell them? Why did I have to go thru the extra Mickey Mouse at the DMV when anyone who wants a card can still get one?
The major problem of any large scale ID system is that it is inherently corruptible. This is not an issue of counterfeit cards but instead corruption of the sytem to produce false cards, that appear to be fully valid, by people on the inside.
As Canada and the US are finding out, passport levels of security work well only when few people have them. Universal IDs end up with DMV quality people and systems – that is exceptionally low. The higher the stakes behind an ID, the greater the incentive to corrupt the system.
Another system problem is that all current IDs are incredibly insecure. You can’t build a secure system off of insecure foundations, but you can’t fix our current problems, as any revalidation of the entire population is just as vulnerable to fraud. Truly secure IDs would require a 90 year program to create a solid foundation for all documents.
Another problem of “secure” IDs comes from the massive scale of the system. 300M people gives 3,000 errors for a 99.999% accurate system (5 nines, the goal of telecom). How many annual transactions would an individual have with this secure and trusted system? How high would the stakes be? 10 – 100 transactions a year seems pretty likely, if not a lowball estimate. So 300K people a year would have a high stakes, high value system fail if it was as reliable as the wireline telephone system is, which it won’t be.
With biometrics you run into problems that a substantial proportion (whole percents) of the population won’t have that body part or will have some problem with fitting into the parameters. What does glaucoma do to an iris scan? Lasik? Contacts? Fungal infection caused by contact lens solution? Biometric scans also fail at a fairly rate (for a large scale, high stakes system). 3-4% error per transaction wouldn’t be out of line, times the expected number of transactions…
Can you now see why people have reservations about these systems? Large scale, high stakes, high trust systems have inherent problems that simply can’t be resolved in any reasonable time frame for any reasonable budget. Make an ID cost $3k per person, and it’s achievable, but you’ll probably always have an annual maintenance cost of a few hundred dollars per person (identity systems have inverse economies of scale). Do you want to spend $1 Trillion to setup the system and $60 Billion annually to run it?
ID cards are just another static defense, easily surmountable by cheap, mobile forces. The money invested could likely be much better spent on offensive measures or high value security personnel. TSA screening costs similarly would create much more value by spending the money on air marshalls and special forces officers with global hunting licenses. Entrust not in walls but in legions!
Here’s a corollary to Murphy’s Law: Any power given to the government will be misinterpreted and/or abused by some low level employee who hasn’t been properly trained. Example: Last August, when the “Thou shall not carry any liquids on board planes” edict went into effect, there was an exemption made for liquid medicine, as long as it was in the original container with a prescription label on it. In Chicago, the people on the front lines enforced “Thou shall not take any medicine on a plane unless you have the prescription”. My wife and I were forced to throw away $200 worth of medication and spend a half a day of our vacation getting refills once we reached our destination.
I applied to renew my passport in May. I haven’t seen it yet. If I were to lose my national ID would I have to stay in the house for 3-6 months waiting to get it replaced?
Would some sales clerk be able to confiscate my ID because s/he thought it was bogus?
“It’s fascinating to see so many conservative-”libertarians” clamoring for an expansion of the Federal government’s role in our lives.”
Handing further power over to the federal government should indeed give us pause. Still, I am a firm believer in the principle of subsidiarity.
A national ID card is a of paramount importance. The states cannot handle this challenge on their own. It is therefore appropriate to take this long
needed step.
So Christianity, in Derbyshire’s secularist view, through the welfare state, multiculturalism, low birth rates, open society and borders, is the true enabler of Islamic terror, not leftist secularism? Perhaps there is a tad of truth there.
Perhaps there is more truth in saying that a weakened, hopelessly emasculated form of Christianity that barely preserves only a form of it, while denying the principle doctrines it was founded upon is more to blame. True Christianity has always combined, for example, compassion combined with responsibility -the classic compassionate conservative, as opposed to the welfare state. An understanding of the sin nature, as orthodox Christianity upholds, leads to a more realistic understanding of the need for law and order and self-defense. True Christianity, while respecting differing cultures, has never equivocated on the supremacy of the Biblical worldview over others and hence the Judeo-Christian culture of liberal democracy and human rights. And low birth rates due to the disintigration of marriage, abortions, encouragement of ‘alternate lifestyles’…orthodox Christianity’s fault?
What Derbyshire and his co-antireligionists like Hitchens should do is, either encourage the return of orthodoxy Christianity to the West, or wholly stay out of areas where they are inherently incapacitated through their secularist bias to understand of even consider.
Roger Simon: “And here’s another potential benefit of the card….
Et voil√°, the slippery slope. What you proceed to describe is not a National ID card, but a massive central database. As Charlie (Colorado) points out above, you will hardly be the only one thinking up ancillary “benefits.”
As for government intentions and abuses, there’s “stereotyped cultural paranoia” — and then there’s the use of National Security Letters, which has gone from rare to routine, and which your KosKids couldn’t talk about, even if you asked them.
BTW, I can rocket from Philly to Pittsburgh unhindered too. When you can get from Paris to Tehran without a customs check, we’ll talk free to roam.
ED- I GOOFED..THOUGHT THAT MY COMMENT TO THE OTHER THREAD DID’T MAKE IT INSTEAD OF ON THIS THREAD. PLEASE DELETE THE ABOVE AND POST THIS ONE. THANKS.BM
Roger,
Onmight understand the orthodox Christian’s opposition to a national ID card (and there are millions of us) by considering the following:
1.) Human nature is baaaaad to the bone. The gathering and centralizing of data for such a project will entail the placing of such info in the hands of…who? Let us not also forget that any database can be hacked into. The Christian understands that people (govt.) are not to be trusted, hence our system of checks and balances. Knowledge is power and absolute knowledge is…combined along with that other axiom and you have one hell of a toxic brew. The old theologians call this the ‘sin nature.’
2.) Most here know that our apocalyptic literature is rife with references to a world dictator who would control and oppress through just such a system of information and identity control. The secularist may snort and sniggle here but, hey, it is our prophecies that are coming literally true.
I’m in favor. You wouldn’t necesarily have to carry the thing, but you’d need to produce it to: get a job, open a bank acount, get a credit card, get a business license, get a drivers license, rent an apartment, buy property, buy a gun, and lots of other things that illegals have no business doing.
We need to move on from the past. We’re no longer the 19th century Yeoman State where you can go off and become someone else. It’s a different world.
To me, this is no different that those groups back a few years ago who refused to get a social security number or register their cars.
They said that Social Security Numbers would never be used for I.D.
They lied.
And you know what? We moved on and it was okay.
The USDA said that their “NAIS” animal tracking system would never be used to force a federal registry of 4H animals.
They lied then, too.
And still, if you don’t mind the nanny state telling you that it’s illegal and morally wrong to buy real, unpasteurized milk, we’re getting along on that, too.
As long as we’re going to act like sheep for the benefit of private-public collusion, and the chances of us getting hurt fall into the “we’re being nice to the peasants anyway” category… then what’s the harm in a little more abuse?
After all, governments are not changed for light and transient causes…
I’m against a national ID card system. It will be riddled with fake IDs, placed there by bribed government agents, or even government agents doing their job. Undercover policemen and other covert agents are going to have to have fake IDs after all. Any ID system will be suborned by design because we have formal positions that require fake ID. The same methods and likely others will be used to create illicit fakes and all of the fanfare about how the new system is ultra-secure will allow for a great deal of penetration before the general public figures out that it’s bogus.
Biometric identity checks will only be a temporary respite as bio-forgers get on the challenge to sculpt illegals with biometrics to match their fancy illegal IDs. This will start in government labs no doubt (perhaps it’s already a solved problem and we don’t even know it) but technology moves fast and it’ll soon get out into the open market at which point capitalism will eventually crater the price until biometrics become worthless.
Already recipes for faking biometric fingerprint readers are available on the open Internet. Last I checked, you don’t need materials more sophisticated than gelatin. And once your fingers or your iris is compromised and being sold on the open market, what, exactly do you do as a replacement? Do you sculpt yourself to get an unused ID yourself? Pardon me if I find that offensive and unacceptable.
What about Social Security IDs? We pretty much all have a Gov. number attached to us.
“You” are not the government. To compare Pajamas Media with the U.S. Government is a category mistake.
The reality of it is that the burden of proof lies with promoters of unprecedented measures like national id (something the writers of the Constitution would have abhorred).
Freedoms are lost in our theory/philosophy long before they are lost in practice. I encourage you to look down the road a little further.
Instead of asking citizens “What do you have to hide?”–we should be monitoring the government and asking it’s members “Why do you want so much power?”
Surely we can think through ways to fight illegal immigration and terror without:
1. A massive increase in government power: If it were not such an increase, there would be no push for this change…
2. A continued undermining of federalism: Federalism is a great idea who time to return has come. It is a Constitutional ideal we should pursue.
3. An undermining of the 4th amendment: My person should be secure from searches and seizures.
If, indeed, biometrics is used someday, the government will have seized incredible personal information of innocent people. Where does this information go? Who will have access to it? Why shouldn’t I consider this information “mine?”
This measure is not really voluntary because REAL ID would control one’s access to banking and travel. The individual will have to have ongoing “permission” to access his own hard-earned money.
4. An increased ability to track Americans in real-time: The ease of real-time surveillance will be immeasurable advanced–apart from “GPS.”
5. An erosion of the presumption of innocence: Is the individual “innocent-until-proven guilty” or “suspect-until-properly-identified?”
6. A radically increased ability to enforce arbitrary (future) rules: Do we really believe politicians will resist using such an infrastructure that makes regulation enforcement and addition so easy?
The so-called “minimum standards” will increase–along with a certain increase in uses for the card.
and
7. Instant federal approval on whether you and I can earn money. This is an incredible power over an American. The “employee verification” system in the defunct immigration bill was tied to REAL ID. This aspect of immigration enforcement is sure to raise its head again.
These things, I believe, are some of the long-term results. The “What Next?” effect.
I’m all for stemming the tide of illegal immigration. But I don’t want to throw our freedoms into the dump to do it.
It’s ironic that the so-called conservatives are pushing for REAL ID. These “conservatives” should quit talking about their belief in “limited government.”