Got ID?
 

By next week, Congress is expected to pass a new national identity law requiring anyone seeking a driver's license to provide a photo ID and birth certificate -- along with proof of state residency, a Social Security card and a secondary document, such as a credit card.

If this is news to you, it may be because it hasn't been debated in the House or Senate. Sponsored by Republicans, it is one of those sneak attacks, tacked to the "supplemental bill," providing emergency funding for our troops and relief for tsunami victims.

Cool, it's about time they did this.

Which part?

Congress has been sneaking things into budgets and bills for years.;)

That democracy stuff is way overrated anyway........all that talking and debating. We should all much prefer the efficiency of a dictatorship in secrecy.

"papers please."

Re: Got ID?
 

What's the problem with this? Seems pretty status quo to me.

I don't see why this is a bad thing, or why you think it's being 'sneaked in.' It's what the rest of the country calls 'common sense'

This seems excessive to me.

My only photo ID (That really means much) is my license. I could opt for a non photo version by simply renewing via mail/internet.

I don't carry a SS card and don't want to. If it gets lost then what?

Also, many young kids applying for a license do not have credita cards.
Will they also need a passport? Will their HS ID pass muster as a photo ID? LOL

The part about the DLs; I don't pay much attention to the anti-this-and-that politicall afterthoughts....or was that what you were really posting?

There are too many people out there who have no photo id, elderly come to mind. They have the right to vote, EVERYONE has the right NOT to have a photo id. If I could get away with being as anonymous as possible I would but I can't do that and function.

The questio is, has there been voter fraud to warrant these new laws? If there has - show me the data - if you don't have it then I don't need to provide you data showing disenfranchisement because you are trying to fix something that you can't prove is broken. The republicans who want this are on the hook for data showing a problem - a perceived problem is not a real problem.

Show me actual convictions for voter fraud because that is the only real acceptible proof there is - NOT allegations, not news reports to the effect - actual convictions.

While I agree with the underlying principle, I'm skeptical of the bill because of the way it is being slithered around the process. The way I heard it pitched was as an anti-terror measure, which is laughable at best.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/holocau...tro_krakow.jpg
If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.:(

Mikester- I think you're mixing your issues. I'm aware of the debate over photo ID to vote, but we're talking about driver's licenses here. I don't think it's unreasonable to require this documentation for a license, and in my state you already need most of this stuff to get one. I mean, you need photo ID and proof of residemce to get a library card...

Here's a list of the documents you need to provide to get a license in the people's republic of Massachusetts:

SSN Card or valid, current U.S. or Non-U.S Passport

Document proving date of birth

Document proving signature

Document proving Massachusetts residency

And heaven help you if you're moving to MA from out of state:

SSN Card or valid, current U.S. or Non-U.S. Passport

1 Primary document proving date of birth

Certified copy of driving record not more than 30 days old

Out-of-state License* (may be used as a Primary document to prove date of birth)

Document proving signature

Most countries I've visited or lived in have a national ID and they are not police states. The US is the only place I know of where a state's driver's license works as an ID... Elsewhere a DL is a license to Drive, no more... Also the US's gotta be the place with the most fake IDs on earth (because of that silly drinking law). A national ID with some real checking behind it seems perfectly valid to me !

ya got me - I'm out of it today.

I digress...I think the bill isn't too bad but the way they are doing it is backhanded.

LOL, everyone has their off days :)
FWIW, I think the photo ID to vote thing IS worth debating and I can see why people might find fault with that proposal.
I just don't see the problem with providing documentation for a driver's license. They're asking for less documentation than you would provide for a passport, or a license to carry. I guess I still fail to see any contraversy that kach22i has alluded to.
I DO see why people might think the way this issue was tacked to another bill was sketchy, but kach22i's politics are showing the way he describes it. To represent this particular sort of underhanded dealing as anything but bi-partisan is almost startlingly naive.

Policeman: Papers please.
Man: (nervously checking pockets) I ...uh ... seem to have left them at the hotel.
Policeman: We'll have to take you down to the station then.
Man: Oh, uh ... hang on, here they are.
Policeman begins examining papers, man shifts nervously, preparing to run.
Policeman: (angry) Hey! These papers expired two weeks ago!
Man runs. Police shoot him repeatedly. He falls dead in front of a sign that reads "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," in French.

They already have such a system in my wonderful state of New Jersey.

They have a point system for each document, and you need 6 points to pass.

-Z.

I'm curious as to what else is buried in that bill. The stated principle is great; as such, legislators should be proud to make a big fanfare of passing it through the process; it would make for some good soundbites. Since they're trying to backdoor it, I suspect there's bits in there we wouldn't like.