The big talk radio topic yesterday was Sen. Grassley’s proposal to require immigrants to show photo ID before buying into new health exchanges. See the headline on Michelle Malkin’s blog for a representative conservative reaction:
Yes, Senate Dems do want illegal alien Obamacare coverage
Now let me stipulate: I speak here as someone who favored national photo ID before national photo ID was cool. I argued for just such a thing in the book I coauthored with Richard Perle way back in 2003.
If conservatives and Republicans have come around to accept this view, that would be a happy day. But I fear as I listen that the debate only confirms that conservatives these days just don’t think before they talk.
Follow the reasoning here:
1) It’s impossible to write a law that says that immigrants and only immigrants must show ID. How would that work?
“Excuse me ma’am, are you an immigrant? If so, may I see your ID?”
“No, no señor! I’m a member of the DAR!”
Obviously if we are going to enforce a legals-only rule for health insurance, everybody will have to show ID.
2) But what ID? Unfortunately, driver’s licenses do not prove legal residency. Even if the REAL ID Act goes into effect as currently scheduled in 2017 – not an outcome to bet money on – driver’s licenses will remain an uncertain proof of legal residency status.
Conversely, there are many legal residents who lack licenses. They are too old, or they drove drunk, or they are legally blind, or they just never got around to acquiring one. What are they supposed to do?
If we’re going to require people to prove their residency status before enrolling in a health exchange, we’re going to need a reliable system of national identification that enrolls everybody, drivers and non-drivers.
3) Again: I’m all for this! But can you imagine what the right blogosophere and talk radio would say if the Obama administration proposed a national identity card? That would be the final proof of the president’s Hitlerite intentions!
* * *
The Grassley debate is a good debate to have. And I do share Malkin’s suspicions that this administration would like to extend subsidized health coverage to illegals – although probably via an amnesty that ended their illegality.
But if this debate is to yield any useful result, conservatives need to be ready to answer the obvious questions: What kind of card? How would it work? What’s our plan? We need to think before we emote.
44 responses so far
1 Chekote // Oct 1, 2009 at 12:13 pm
The same people who scream the loudest about curtailing illegal immigration also scream the loudest against a national ID card. It can even be a state ID. I don’t care. But you need some sort of ID that shows the legal status of each person. Otherwise, you can’t enforce employment laws or any laws.
2 balconesfault // Oct 1, 2009 at 12:42 pm
There is a big difference between an ID you need to verify eligibility for employment … and an ID you need to get medical treatment.
Because the latter pretty much says you need to have said ID on you at all times – just in case.
Out for an afternoon run on the local hike and bike trail? Better have your id! Because if you get hit by a car at an intersection, or have a heart attack, and they need to rush you to the hospital, is there going to be some provision denying you coverage if they can’t prove you’re a legal resident or citizen?
I’m really against a national ID. Because I do fear big government, and know how things can mutate, particularly in times of fear. And after 9/11, we quickly became a nation where you had to show some form of identification not only to fly on a plane … but even to catch a Greyhound bus. If everyone needs to possess a national ID, it won’t be a stretch for a terrorist incident to trigger legislation or policy to allow police to ask for your ID just for walking down the street.
“Land of the Free” does mean something. And Franklin’s warning “Those who surrender liberty in the name of security deserve neither” isn’t an absolute marker against any appropriate security measures, but it is a useful warning about surrendering too much of our freedom.
You can be assured that it wouldn’t be just talk radio and the right blogosphere that would oppose such a proposal. In addition to the current cadre of right wing hacks who would nod in approval if it were proposed under a Republican Administration but scream tyranny if it were proposed under a Dem … there remains a strong base of civil libertarians of both political stripes who would be strongly opposed on the grounds I noted above.
3 SFTor1 // Oct 1, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Germany and Russia has it, so why shouldn’t we?
In Norway there is an expression: “meeting yourself in the door.” That’s what happens to Conservatives here.
(Are the two of you introduced?)
4 Travis_F // Oct 1, 2009 at 12:58 pm
I don’t understand the debate on giving care to illegals, because we do that already, with our federal rule that mandates that all people who go into an ER must be treated regardless of whether they can pay. If we want to deal with illegal immigrants getting healthcare, then that rule needs to change. National ID cards seem like a good way to do that.
5 Chekote // Oct 1, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Sinz
Are you around? Need to ask you a couple of questions.
6 SFTor1 // Oct 1, 2009 at 1:12 pm
travis_f, David Frum’s article specifically addressed the issues around requiring IDs to receive care, the main one being that a lot of Americans do not have ID.
Did you even read what he wrote?
7 rbottoms // Oct 1, 2009 at 1:21 pm
The black helicopter (teabagger) wing of the GOP would never stand for it.
8 SFTor1 // Oct 1, 2009 at 1:35 pm
And the Asian woman, is that an illustration to the article, or has David Frum gotten a makeover?
9 Oneon1isto // Oct 1, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Re: Balcones: I’m a small government lad myself, but I’ve never really had many concerns around a National ID card.
“Asking for ID” just doesn’t seem all that tied to freedom–rather, it seems connected to convenience and pragmatism. Bars ask for your ID to verify your age, police to check for open warrants, companies to check for criminal history, etc. Identification, in my mind, has always been a shortcut for society, and not much else. It’s a way of guaranteeing you are who you say you are immediately, rather than going through some lengthy process.
Not to mention, we’re already blanketed in IDs. How far off is a National ID from a Social Security card?
10 Oneon1isto // Oct 1, 2009 at 1:37 pm
stfor1: pretty sure that’s Michelle Malkin, who Frum namechecks in his post.
11 EscapeVelocity // Oct 1, 2009 at 1:52 pm
How about ID verification for voting purposes?
Talk about meeting yourself at the door!
12 Reason60 // Oct 1, 2009 at 1:53 pm
I think it is not just the rabid black helicopter nuts who dislike a national ID;
Identification papers, up to and including birth certificates, can always be forged. Trying to create a “forgery-proof” ID card would require so massive a database of government information, and so deeply intrude into our personal lives, that the damage to civil liberty would outweigh whatever benefit the ID would provide.
Not to say that we can’t provide SOME enforcement of legal residence; I think the flaw is in imagining that we can create total foolproof enforcement of anything. It is like the difference between cops pulling over suspected drunk drivers versus massive drunk driving checkpoints.
The damage of a few illegals getting free health care is small compared to living in a nation where an evening stroll becomes a page out of Ray Bradbury’s “The Pedestrian” .
13 EscapeVelocity // Oct 1, 2009 at 1:53 pm
But you need some sort of ID that shows the legal status of each person. — Chekote
Um, like a Green Card, Visa, Passport?
Hello!
14 EscapeVelocity // Oct 1, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Bingo, reason.
Furthermore, instead of a massive illegal immigrant problem from Latin America and Mexico especially, we could have a very mild illegal immigrant problem.
However, for some reason we dont, and certain groups propose massive citizenship granting as the “solution.” Idiots.
15 Churl // Oct 1, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Why a national ID card? Why not something like a credit card that shows medical coverage of whatever sort?
With this sort of document, illegals could have health insurance if they somehow arranged payment for it themselves.
16 Travis // Oct 1, 2009 at 2:01 pm
How do we know Michelle Malkin isn’t an ‘illegal’?
17 EscapeVelocity // Oct 1, 2009 at 2:21 pm
People are treated in emergencies without insurance verification.
Whoever threw that out there is poorly informed and is just slinging mud to see what sticks.
18 balconesfault // Oct 1, 2009 at 3:15 pm
People are treated in emergencies without insurance verification.
OK – so how do you know you’re not treating illegals?
Isn’t that the whole point of the “enforcable provisions” argument over a public option – whether some illegal might end up getting healthcare on the public till as a result?
I’m pretty sure that they wouldn’t allow illegals to buy into the public option … which means they wouldn’t have coverage under it (although allowing illegals to buy into it would probably be the smartest thing for us, but the whole illegal debate works really hard to avoid smart). So you wouldn’t have illegals getting access to all the other forms of coverage provided by the public option.
What’s left? The coverage illegals are currently getting anyhow – treatment when they show up at an emergency room. So the only thing that an “enforcable provision” could really affect would be that treatment.
19 balconesfault // Oct 1, 2009 at 3:18 pm
reason60: The damage of a few illegals getting free health care is small compared to living in a nation where an evening stroll becomes a page out of Ray Bradbury’s “The Pedestrian” .
Amen.
20 EscapeVelocity // Oct 1, 2009 at 3:24 pm
I dont know what you are on about.
The point is to get illegals out of the country, and if they are going to come here legally and work, then their employers can fund their health care, instead of foisting it onto the American people.
Comprende.
Border Security, strict enforcement of immigration and employment laws, etc…..you know, how Mexico does it.
The enforcement provision precludes illegals from getting US welfare bennies. How do you reduce the cost of illegals showing up at ER for care……Tough Border and Immigration Enforcement.
21 EscapeVelocity // Oct 1, 2009 at 3:26 pm
reason60: The damage of a few illegals getting free health care is small compared to living in a nation where an evening stroll becomes a page out of Ray Bradbury’s “The Pedestrian” .
Amen.
———-
The key word there is “a few.” And getting to that point via granting citizenship to 20 million +/- 10 million illegals isnt the answer. Redefining the problem away….CLASSIC!
22 balconesfault // Oct 1, 2009 at 3:47 pm
escape: The enforcement provision precludes illegals from getting US welfare bennies.
How many illegal immigrants currently get US welfare benefits?
23 mycelf // Oct 1, 2009 at 5:53 pm
“pretty sure that’s Michelle Malkin, who Frum namechecks in his post.”
If it is, she’s a hottie.
24 mycelf // Oct 1, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Maybe Frum should start a conservative hottie series along the lines of conservatives and their dogs . It’s more useful filler between meaningful posts.
25 Reason60 // Oct 1, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Well, I am not as upset about illegal immigration as most.
If we have people living their full time lives here, they are de facto citizens; they aren’t harming us in any way that a legal immigrant doesn’t. The complaint about them clogging emergency rooms is due to their low wages, not their immigration status.
I live on a street in Orange County California with 16 houses; I am the only native born citizen here. One neighbor is from Afghanistan, the other is from Russia, the ones across the street are from Mexico, and all the rest are from Vietnam. The houses are kept up nicely, everyone works hard, and behaves like model citizens.
You can’t tell their immigration status by their behavior- were they all illegal, or legal, would their impact on the community and economy change?
I understand this may be a minority point of view (to put it mildly).
Yes, we should have control over our borders- but the level of concern and angst over immigration is out of proportion to its impact.
And actually I do sympathize with the anxiety over driving down the street and not being able to read half the signs. It is disconcerting to feel like a tourist in your own home town. But once you get to know them, you find that most immigrants, legal or otherwise, have pretty much the same basic values as we do, and more importantly, are capable of contributing tremendously to our communities.
In hindsight, the previous waves of immigratiuon were a benefit to our country; I think this one will be the same.
26 anniemargret // Oct 1, 2009 at 6:13 pm
mycelf: Maybe Frum should start a conservative hottie series along the lines of conservatives and their dogs.
Well, he already ran a conservative and their dogs series. I think this is already ‘filler’ don’t you?
Ann Coulter’s dog is far better looking than she is. And probably a lot nicer, too.
27 Travis // Oct 1, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Isn’t it just easier to hate/fear/demonize illegal aliens? I mean, it appears to requiere effort to get to know your neighbors better, see that they too are humans trying to take care of their families, etc. I’d rather just not work/think too hard and decide they’re evil.
28 mycelf // Oct 1, 2009 at 7:52 pm
@anniemargret — you’re right on all counts.
i’m getting annoyed with the noise to signal ratio on the new majority. i don’t really think a younger canadian spin on tired lines of thought do much toward the “modernization and renewal of the Republican party and the conservative movement.”
while frum is not as obnoxious as beck, at least beck purports himself to be a ‘rodeo clown’ rather than someone trying to right a sinking political ship.
29 wittymoniker // Oct 1, 2009 at 8:11 pm
mycelf – Your comments in this thread certainly aren’t adding anything to the noise to signal ratio.
30 EscapeVelocity // Oct 1, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Here is an intelligent article…
Obama’s not-so-secret plan to raise taxes
http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2009/09/30/obamas-not-so-secret-plan-to-raise-taxes/
31 SFTor1 // Oct 1, 2009 at 9:33 pm
There seems to be some people here who realize that we live in an imperfect society where it’s not always so easy to find perfect solutions. Illegal immigrants contribute significantly to the U.S. economy without getting much in return. More than anything hey are welcomed here by agribusiness and the service industry (restaurants etc.) Those are traditionally Republican constituents, so there is a conflict of interest in the Republican tent on that one.
Legalization is probably not such a bad idea. Treating them like human beings is a moral imperative.
32 EscapeVelocity // Oct 1, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Issue 1, 2004
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
El Paso Branch
Workers’ Remittances to Mexico
http://www.dallasfed.org/research/busfront/bus0401.html
In 2003, Mexico received nearly $13.3 billion in workers’ remittances, an amount equivalent to about 140 percent of foreign direct investment and 71 percent of oil exports. Continued growth in remittances is expected in 2004. The latest data, through March 2004, show remittances almost 22 percent higher than the same period a year ago. As a result of their vigorous growth, workers’ remittances now occupy third place as a foreign exchange generator for Mexico. Maquiladoras continue to be the top foreign exchange generator, at $18.4 billion in 2003, followed by oil at $15 billion.
(Thats 15 billion that wont be spent here in local communities, sucked out of the local economies, which has a multiplying effect as it moves around.)
Although more than 90 percent of Mexican municipalities received some remittance payments in 2000, just 20 percent (or 463 of 2,443 municipalities) received almost half the total.
GIS Tracks Earnings Sent Home by Mexican Migrants
By German Zárate-Hoyos and Scott W. Anderson, State University of New York, Cortland
http://www.esri.com/news/arcuser/0205/remittance1of2.html
For states with a significant number of migrant workers, remittances are extremely important. These states receive significantly more funds from remittances than from federal spending. Remittances to Guanajuato are 14 times greater than all federal social expenditures in that state. In Hidalgo, Puebla, Oaxaca, and Veracruz, remittances represent 100 percent more than all federal outlays in these states.
33 EscapeVelocity // Oct 1, 2009 at 9:48 pm
We can treat them like Mexico treats human beings that break their immigration and employment laws.
34 mycelf // Oct 1, 2009 at 9:57 pm
what can ’seriously’ be said about this topic?
there are many systems already in place for providing proof of identity (drivers license, id cards, student ids, passports, etc).
if someone wants to participate in the exchange, then they must provide proof of identity. it isn’t rocket surgery or brain science. we do it all the time for bank accounts, credit card transactions, property rentals, getting into the bar, buying alcohol, etc. while the systems are not perfect, they are more than adequate for the need.
really, what more is there to say?
35 EscapeVelocity // Oct 1, 2009 at 10:01 pm
True.
In fact the SS# is abused as an ID. Which was predicted a long long time ago.
Ive have video rental clerks request my SS#, to which I reply are you donating to my account?
36 balconesfault // Oct 1, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Escape – not all of those remittances are from illegals. In fact, documented workers generally make significantly better wages than undocumented, and thus can be expected to send more money back to their families.
Meanwhile, I’ll see your remittances, and bump you 6-7 billion a year in illegals contributions to the Social Security trust fund.
http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/apr2006/pi20060407_072803.htm
Each year, for example, the U.S. Social Security Administration maintains roughly $6 billion to $7 billion of Social Security contributions in an “earnings suspense file” — an account for W-2 tax forms that cannot be matched to the correct Social Security number. The vast majority of these numbers are attributable to undocumented workers who will never claim their benefits.
37 EscapeVelocity // Oct 1, 2009 at 11:30 pm
Meanwhile, I’ll see your remittances, and bump you 6-7 billion a year in illegals — balconesfault
LOL!
BTW, Im not that hostile to Mexican workers. But I do have nuanced positions, including reciprical easing of American immigration and property ownership laws in Mexico.
If I can figure this stuff out, then there is no excuse for the dingleberry’s up in Congress not to be able to understand good policy prescriptions, law changes, enforcement and negotiation with Mexico.
Good Lord!
38 EscapeVelocity // Oct 2, 2009 at 1:37 am
The Next Right has already conceded the battle…..Frum is fading fast.
http://thenextright.com/jon-henke/new-battlefield-old-guard
As I said, its not an either or proposition. There is room for both, and we need them both. The Left was very successful in pushing their agenda with loons dressed up like cows beating plastic buckets and throwing molotov cocktails at the WTO and G8/G20 meetings for decades.
You can always disavow them, while still enjoying the service they provide in attacking the other side viciously and unrelentingly. And we can do it with a bit more aplomb and dedication to the truth than the Left as well.
39 Kevin B // Oct 2, 2009 at 9:37 am
“Um, like a Green Card, Visa, Passport?
Hello!”
Well, I have a passport, but no Visa or Green Card, since I was born and raised in the USA. My brothers don’t have passports at all, nor do their children. How are we to prove we are not illegal aliens?
If an ID check doesn’t require all people to be checked–if it is checked only for those who look or sound “foreign”–then it will quickly be struck down in the courts.
Many places that sell alcohol or cigarettes will check ID on anyone who tries to purchase those items, even if the customer looks 90 years old.
The answer seems simple to me: If the public option insurance card is also a photo ID, then the providers will need to check it so they know where to file the insurance. If you don’t have an insurance card, the provider will not be able to bill insurance. Enforcement is based on the provider wanting to get paid.
If you have private insurance, then the provider doesn’t need to see ID (but may ask anyway). Presumably, you’re paying for that insurance, so you’re not a drain on the taxpayers.
If you’re paying cash, then the provider doesn’t need to see ID (and you are not a drain on the taxpayers anyway).
In emergencies, the care may come first, and the ID check later.
Note that the providers are not checking citizenship or legal residency. They are checking whether they will get paid. Turning doctors into INS agents strikes me as totalitarian.
The place to check for legal status is in the process of applying for the public option, and especially when applying for government subsidies when you can’t afford the premium.
40 midcon // Oct 2, 2009 at 9:54 am
I have held a security clearance since before I was old enough to legally drink. That means the government has had my fingerprints; knows who my relatives and friends are; knows who I have had a a personal relationship with; has knowledge of my fianances; and knows whether I have had any legal issues, including speeding tickets (yeah, I’ve had a few).
They are not parked outside my house and I am not under surveillance (well as far as I know). The very last thing in the world I fear is a national id used to obtain essential services that are partially or wholly provided by the taxpayer.
If you are self sufficient and never need to avail yourself of government services that are paid for by the taxpayer then you should not need identification. BUT if you take a stinking dime of my tax money, I want some valid form of identification that verifies you have a right to those services. If you go to the ER and pay cash – God bless you. But if you go there and expect the taxpayer to foot some of the bill – show me who you are. Ditto on voting in my elections; driving on my roads; crossing my borders; and collecting Social Security and Medicare – which I, the taxpayer, have so kindly provided you.
If you in your paranoia believe that the government is coming to get you (no matter how silly that sounds), you should be informed that they usually have better things to do. Even so, if you are filled with that overriding fear, then stay off the radar and stay out of my wallet.
A national ID is would be so useful and beneficial for mitigating the effects of illegal immigration; voter registration; medical care; lost or abducted children; and a host of other services that it should be intuitively obvious that we should have it. Just as every child born in this country must have a social security number so should we all have a national id.
41 sinz54 // Oct 2, 2009 at 10:22 am
Chekote:
I have returned.
As you know, I have some nontrivial health problems, so I was not available for much of yesterday.
42 sinz54 // Oct 2, 2009 at 10:25 am
midcon:
Even the civil libertarian, Alan Dershowitz, decided to favor a national ID card (with strict privacy protections) in the wake of the 9-11 terrorist attack.
At the time, he said that all persons have a right to privacy. But no person has a right to be anonymous. Allowing masses of people to tool around the nation in total anonymity is something we can no longer afford in an age of terrorism.
43 midcon // Oct 2, 2009 at 4:45 pm
sinz; I like that thought – the right to privacy but limits on anonymity.
44 SFTor1 // Oct 3, 2009 at 1:21 pm
escape says: “We can treat them like Mexico treats human beings that break their immigration and employment laws.”
If you would like to join escape on his race to the bottom it’s a good idea to jump on now.
You must log in to post a comment.