The LA Times Editorial section sheds some light on Feb 7, 2008 on whether or not Real ID will meet its proclaimed security goals:
Let’s imagine that Real ID was in place on 9/11. Would it have prevented the 19 hijackers from boarding those four planes? No. The hijackers had legal documentation that would have allowed them to get driver’s licenses even under the provisions of Real ID. Terrorist organizations are vast, complex, highly trained and well funded. They have the resources and know-how to make some of the best forged documents in the world or recruit people who can get valid documents. This is not to say that we should just give up, but we certainly shouldn’t be fooled into thinking that new documents are going to fully protect us.
Only adding to the ridiculousness of the law is the fact that we’ll end up having to trust DMV workers to make important national security decisions, like whether or not someone’s documents are valid. If you think waiting in line at the DMV is bad now, wait until you have to get your Real ID.
I tend to agree that adding more bureaucracy to the DMV is not a good idea. Especially in the context of decisions that supposedly will have an impact on national security.
This next paragraph made me laugh out loud a little bit. I do not believe our country has come to the point on immigration reform where we need to do it through a bill that was introduced, sat around, then tacked onto another bill and passed. Considering that this legislation is a burden on the states on the people (whip out your Constitution), it doesn’t make sense to play a game of duck, duck, gray duck to solve our immigration problem.
Only seven states allow undocumented immigrants to have a license, and yet undocumented immigration continues. The Real ID law does allow states the option of issuing licenses solely for the use of driving, but licenses must clearly state the limits of their use. Since only those without legal documentation are likely to ask for such a “driver’s license-only card,” these licenses might as well have “undocumented immigrant” emblazoned on them. Talk about a disincentive.
If we could count on illegal immigrants self-identifying under our current laws, I think they would have done it by now. Maybe there is proof that works, but it still leaves the larger question of how to handle immigrants unanswered.
This last paragraph from the anti-Real ID side of the editorial explains why this feeble attempt at solving an immigration problem does not work. People will need the right set of comprehensive incentives to identify themselves.
Wouldn’t we actually be safer if more, not fewer people had a driver’s license? Of course we would. A license certifies that an individual has taken a driver’s training course and has met a minimum standard of driving know-how. Unlicensed drivers, on the other hand, have no formal training and are thus generally more dangerous behind the wheel. According to the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, unlicensed drivers are five times more likely to be in a fatal crash than unlicensed drivers. So much for keeping us safe.
The editorial also takes up the other side of the issue.
Every modern society requires a system of identification — there’s simply no way to avoid that in a large, urbanized nation where few people live and work in the same community with the same neighbors their whole lives.
In most countries, that need for ID is filled by the central government with some form of national identification card. America’s more decentralized experience has led to a different result — a patchwork system of state driver’s licenses serving as our de facto national ID system.
“A patchwork system of state driver’s licenses…” To me this quote sounds exactly what the Constitution intended for the roles of the states. A policy laboratory where the states experiment and come up with the best system and if they find something innovative, other states following suit. The result – a de facto national policy. I think we need to ask a fundamental question: Do state ID’s need a federal stamp of approval? Currently, I have a Minnesota license and reside in Illinois. I drive around Chicago. I drive through Wisconsin to get home. If I were pulled over, I am certain that if I offered my license the state would be happy to fine me if I broke the law. I am no less a citizen of the United States for not having a Real ID. The way the Real ID Act is set up is to define our citizenship in terms of your identification. If you consider this bill worth its cost, the only arguments that come close would be for national security, in terms of immigration and terrorism. This very fact lends to my point that the purpose of this is to make being American represented by your identification.
I think part of the unique American experience is our federalist system. Maybe more on federalism later…
Recent Comments