WHENEVER THE subject of a national ID card arises, many Americans flash back to scenes from 1940s movies about Nazi-occupied Europe - the kind in which Gestapo agents demand, "Your papers, please."
But such anxieties should not short-circuit debate over whether the federal government should create a national ID card. Already, Americans are expected to show government-issued photo IDs in numerous ways in their daily lives. It's worth discussing, at least, whether a single national standard could be simpler and fairer than relying on a patchwork of motor vehicle offices from state to state.
The absence of a secure national ID has left the country dealing messily with issues ranging from the prevention of terrorism to the proof of voters' identities.
More than six years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the nation is still not close to having more secure driver's licenses, a major recommendation of the Sept. 11 commission. In an attempt to dampen states' opposition to what many see as an unfunded federal mandate, the US Department of Homeland Security earlier this month issued regulations that are looser than earlier proposals for the extra-strength licenses that states would have to issue under the 2005 Real ID law. States would have until 2011 to begin issuing such licenses to drivers younger than 50; until 2017 for older drivers.
But the new rules, many state officials say, are still too burdensome. Seven states have opted out of the Real ID process; 10 others have passed legislation asking that the Real ID law be changed or repealed.
More secure proof of identity has also been in the background of the presidential candidates' debate over illegal immigration. Candidates talk repeatedly about deterring the flow of immigrants into the United States by using tough sanctions on employers to make it next to impossible for illegal immigrants to find work here. But any crackdown on employers who regularly hire illegal immigrants carrying easily forged papers would have to be based on the issuance of a new document proving legal residence that cannot be readily counterfeited.
Identity cards are also central to a case heard earlier this month by the US Supreme Court. The justices appeared likely to let stand an Indiana law that requires would-be voters to present a photo identification, such as a driver's license, or to go through a fairly cumbersome process to get such identification if they are nondrivers. Voting-rights activists - as well as this editorial page - have lambasted the law and similar ones in other states, because such measures are likely to suppress voting by the poor and elderly. But the issue would arguably be moot if every resident of the United States carried a secure ID card provided at no cost by the federal government.
Still, as appealing as it would be to have a one-card answer to the problem of proving identity when boarding an airplane, applying for a job or casting a ballot, critics of a national identity card say it is a false solution.
Try as the government might to make its cards secure, the critics say that identity thieves and other criminals with cutting-edge technological skills would find ways to make duplicate cards. Restoring one's identity after documents have been stolen or duplicated is difficult now, but would be even more so if the document carried a unique biometric marker, as has often been proposed for a national ID.
Carol Rose, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, compares a national ID to the Maginot Line, the seemingly impregnable defensive barrier that France built after World War I. The German Army got around it without much trouble.
Rose also worries about mission creep. A card originally designed to prove identity only for air travel, a job application or voting could become necessary for securing a loan, getting a credit card, purchasing a firearm or for other purposes - much as a Social Security number now does multiple duty for uses that have nothing to do with the collection of the payroll tax. The more a card is used for commercial transactions, the greater its value becomes to a criminal.
Not just a license?
The Real ID has been presented to the public as a souped-up driver's license that would also let its holder board an airplane. But the 2005 law authorizes its use in other situations as well. Last week, a Homeland Security official suggested that drugstores could require purchasers of cold medicine containing pseudoephedrine, an ingredient in methamphetamine, to present their Real IDs. Any legislation creating a national ID card would have to prohibit its use for any purpose other than those spelled out in the law.Sticking by those limits once the cards are issued will not be easy. The sheer expense of authenticating data and issuing the cards will create pressure from business and government to use them in a broad variety of ways. The Department of Homeland Security guesses that it will cost states almost $4 billion to handle the Real ID system, and that is based on a low-ball estimate that just 75 percent of the population will seek the cards.
Other countries, especially in Europe, have had national ID cards for generations. But they typically have much more robust privacy-protection laws than the United States, greatly limiting the risk that a national ID becomes an open sesame to widespread distribution and commercial exploitation of personal data.
Critics of a national ID also worry about police challenging members of the public, especially in minority neighborhoods, to show their national ID. But similar harassment is already possible under the current system. Further abuses can be headed off by stipulating in the law that no one would be required to present a national ID except in very specific circumstances.
A productive debate over a national ID would require Americans to acknowledge how far down this road the country has already traveled. A presidential election year is a proper time for such a discussion. This year's campaigning has seen lively debates about immigration, energy, the economy, and the war in Iraq. The question of a national identity card deserves at least a hearing as well.
