A National ID Card Bill Passes in House of Representatives

By Marcel Votlucka
Staff Writer

The House of Representatives has passed a bill that critics claim amounts to creating a de facto national ID card. The Real ID Act (HR 418), passed on Thursday, February 10, requires that states comply with federal standards for driver’s licenses. Licenses would henceforth contain what the bill calls “a common machine-readable technology,” which could mean a magnetic strip and/or an RFID chip. RFIDs (Radio Frequency Identification tags) transmit information about a person’s movements to a central computer.

The bill standardizes not only the kinds of documentation that people must present in order to get a license, it also provides that the Department of Homeland Security is to be held responsible for drafting the details of what other kinds of information could be required—given expanding technology, this may include biometric information such as retina scans, fingerprints and even DNA information.

Henceforth, state issued IDs would require a digital photograph, so that the images may be kept in computer files—presumably to be transferred to other agencies if desired. In addition, paper copies of source documents—birth certificates, Social Security cards, et cetera—would be kept on record for years under the terms of the bill. ID cards that fail to meet the prescribed requirements would not be used by any federal agency for any purpose.

Moreover, the bill also provides for states to provide databases with applicants’ information, which can be shared with other government agencies under the provisions of the bill.

On top of all this, the bill also contains a proposal to build a fence along the California-Mexico border.

The Real ID Act’s supporters claim that it is aimed at standardizing identification procedures as a way of thwarting illegal immigration and terrorism. The bill’s official stated purpose is “[t]o establish and rapidly implement regulations for State driver's license and identification document security standards, to prevent terrorists from abusing the asylum laws of the United States, to unify terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility and removal, and to ensure expeditious construction of the San Diego border fence.”

By enforcing these new regulations, supporters argue that terrorists will be made less able to abuse asylum laws to enter the US, government agencies will be better able to exchange information, and, therefore, Americans will be more secure. Supporters also point out that if biometric information such as fingerprints and even DNA information is to be included on federalized drivers’ licenses, this could make identity theft more difficult.

However, the bill’s opponents argue that this standardization is tantamount to a national ID card, that it undermines state’s rights, that maintaining databases will lead to massive invasions of privacy and that the bill cannot and will not prevent terrorist acts or stop illegal immigration. Furthermore, they argue that people fleeing from repression in foreign lands will be made less able to claim asylum in the US because of the bill’s provisions.

It is the proposed databases that the bill’s opponents find particularly disturbing. Section 203 of the Real ID Act provides for a “Driver’s License Agreement,” in which states will maintain databases and share information with other state agencies—including records of motor vehicle violations, suspensions and points on licenses, in addition to addresses, Social Security numbers and information on immigration status. If states do not comply, they will be ineligible for certain federal funds.

Opposition comes from a broad range of groups, liberal and conservative alike. In particular, firearm rights groups such as Gun Owners of America and civil libertarians such as the ACLU contend that the new regulations make state DMVs agents of the federal government, a situation which they contend is a violation of Constitutional principles. Gun Owners of America argues that the new regulations could mean that the federal government could gain total control over who may obtain a driver’s license and abuse that power.

Others warn that if denied one of the new breed of IDs, people may be unable to travel freely on planes or trains, and lose access federal courthouses or any place administered by the federal government . Critics say this situation could create innumerable problems for may people in their daily lives.

The White House strongly supported the bill, which passed the House with 95% of House Republicans supporting it. House Democrats, on the other hand, overwhelmingly opposed the bill, with 75% voting “nay.” Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton criticized the Republicans’ advocacy for the bill, “I thought the other side of the aisle extols federalism at all times. . . So what's happening now? Why are those who speak up for states whenever it strikes their fancy doing this now?”

Criticism is not limited to Democrats, however. Ron Paul, a Texas Republican, angrily denounced the bill on the House floor. He was one of the few House Republicans who voted against the measure. Rep. Paul argued, “this bill is a Trojan horse. It pretends to offer desperately needed border control in order to stampede Americans into sacrificing what is uniquely American: our constitutionally protected liberty.” He addressed the proposed databases—the information in which will be shared with Canada and Mexico—and pointed out the realistic possibility that corrupt officials may abuse information or even give or sell it to others for their own use—including terrorists.

Rep. Paul continued, “There are no prohibitions against including such information in the database as information about a person’s exercise of First Amendment rights or about a person’s appearance on a registry of firearms owners.”

Rep. Paul addressed a claim by the bill’s supporters that it is voluntary and is not really a nationalized ID card. “Supporters claim the national ID scheme is voluntary. However, any state that opts out will automatically make non-persons out of its citizens. The citizens of that state will be unable to have any dealings with the federal government because their ID will not be accepted.” Echoing warnings about how the bill may ultimately impede citizens’ ability to travel freely if they are actively denied access to a card or for some reason do not have one, he warned, “In essence, in the eyes of the federal government they will cease to exist. It is absurd to call this voluntary, and the proponents of the national ID know that every state will have no choice but to comply.”

The Real ID Act will have to pass in the Senate before it becomes a law. It is expected to come to a vote soon, possibly attached to war spending for Iraq.