This is going around the conservo-sphere, anyone want to take a crack at it?

[KeepTalking]

A Social Security number is required to work, most jobs do not require a photo ID to my knowledge. But what about the elderly, who have voted all their lives, and do not have an ID, do not work, and never drove a vehicle?

You need photo ID to become an employee

You are incorrect:

http://www.twc.state.tx.us/news/efte/i_9_requirements_lists.html

the documents are either one unexpired document from List A (documents showing both identity and work authorization), or one unexpired document from List B (documents showing identity) and one unexpired document from List C (documents showing work authorization);
the lists show several different documents that are acceptable - employers may not insist on certain documents for I-9 purposes

List A - Documents that Establish Both Identity and Employment Authorization
U.S. Passport or U.S. Passport Card
Permanent Resident Card or Alien Registration Receipt Card (Form I-551)
Foreign passport that contains a temporary I-551 stamp or temporary I-551 printed notation on a machine-readable immigrant visa
Employment Authorization Document that contains a photograph (Form I-766)
For a nonimmigrant alien authorized to work for a specific employer because of his or her status:
Foreign passport; and
Form I-94 or Form I-94A that has the following:
The same name as the passport; and
An endorsement of the alien's nonimmigrant status, as long as the period of endorsement has not yet expired and the proposed employment is not in conflict with any restrictions or limitations identified on the form.
A passport from the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) or the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) with Form I-94 or Form I-94A indicating nonimmigrant admission under the Compact of Free Association Between the United States and the FSM or RMI
List B - Documents that Establish Identity
Driver's license or ID card issued by a state or outlying possession of the United States, provided it contains a photograph or information such as name, date of birth, gender, height, eye color, and address
ID card issued by federal, state, or local government agencies or entities, provided it contains a photograph or information such as name, date of birth, gender, height, eye color, and address
School ID card with a photograph
Voter's registration card
U.S. military card or draft record
Military dependent's ID card
U.S. Coast Guard Merchant Mariner card
Native American tribal document
Driver's license issued by a Canadian government authority

(For persons under age 18 who are unable to present a document listed above
School record or report card
Clinic, doctor, or hospital record
Day-care or nursery school record
List C - Documents that Establish Employment Authorization
A Social Security Account Number card, unless the card includes one of the following restrictions:*
(1) NOT VALID FOR EMPLOYMENT
(2) VALID FOR WORK ONLY WITH INS AUTHORIZATION
(3) VALID FOR WORK ONLY WITH DHS AUTHORIZATION
Certification of Birth Abroad issued by the Department of State (Form FS-545)
Certification of Report of Birth issued by the Department of State (Form DS-1350)
Original or certified copy of birth certificate issued by a State, county, municipal authority, or territory of the United States bearing an official seal
Native American tribal document
U.S. Citizen ID Card (Form I-197)
Identification Card for Use of Resident Citizen in the United States (Form I-179)
Employment authorization document issued by the Department of Homeland Security

So, I can use a Voter's registration card (list B, not a photo ID), and my SSN card (list C, not a photo ID), and obtain employment. My employer cannot insist that I use other documentation.

 

[dystopian]

Any such hassle can't be more than minor at best. If you're not even willing to go through a minimum of effort to obtain a photo ID, then why should you be allowed to influence national policy?

Did you not read his posts about it? IIRC he can't sign his name at this point--a big problem for getting a birth certificate.

How exactly is that a big problem? Any half-way competent government is able to alter the procedure to accommodate specific circumstances. If it's currently too much of a hassle to get it done, then it isn't an argument against requiring people to get a photo ID in order to be allowed to vote, it's an argument against incompetent government.

 

[dystopian]

I would imagine that your country implemented the mandatory ID as a whole with the intent to make sure that all citizens were able to easily obtain that ID.

Uh, no. Why would you think that's the intent? That's backward. Making sure that all citizens are able to easily obtain the ID is something done to make sure there's no practical roadblocks to a mandatory ID; not the other way around. A mandatory ID is ridiculously useful in so many legitimate situations.

It is not absurd when you look at some of the States that have implemented voter ID, and how they used every trick they could think of to disenfranchise poor inner city voters.

That's not an argument against photo ID's or anything, though. That's an argument against partisan politicians.

 

[laughing dog]

I remember some debates with Americans on ID in the past, right around the time when over here a mandatory ID card was introduced. There were people here who had the same arguments as the americans did; mostly relating to privacy and the like. The thing though is, that the mandatory ID hasn't infringed on privacy much, if at all. Having it with you has been nothing but an advantage, and the idealogical arguments against have all evaporated. Cost should definitely be brought down in the opinion of most people (though of course, the government isn't likely to just give up on forcing people to renew it for a solid fee every once in a while), but that aside; it's been a net positive.

I absolutely agree (although in my state it is difficult to reduce the cost lower than free). It is a means to reduce voter fraud as intended but also is useful in other areas of daily life like cashing a check, opening accounts, or any activity where identification is needed. I can only imagine that the political opposition must be because one party believes that it will eliminate some of their base as voters which is an absurd fear if the voters are legally eligible to vote.

Since it takes knowlede, time and effort to get an ID, it is not costless. Unless a legally eligible voter can get an ID at the polls, your argument is specious.

 

[ImGod]

Okay. Let's have voter photo ID. For the people who show up to vote at the polling places. But since they are closing down polling places, decreasing voting hours, and all but guaranteeing long lines; early and absentee ballots are going strong and getting stronger each election cycle.

http://nationbuilder.com/nebraska_early_voting_bucking_the_trend

So have fun standing in line with your ID. I already voted by mail and OH NOES I DIDN'T HAVE ID ON ME!

 

[dystopian]

Since it takes knowlede, time and effort to get an ID, it is not costless. Unless a legally eligible voter can get an ID at the polls, your argument is specious.

How exactly is his argument specious because he doesn't define free the way you do? Do you take issue with his claim that a photo ID is a means to reduce voter fraud? Do you take issue with his claim that it's useful in many other areas of life? Or do you take issue with him stating that he can only imagine that the political opposition to them must be because some politicians believe it will eliminate their voter base?

I don't see how any of this is called into question by whether or not a mandatory ID is free or not.

 

[KeepTalking]

Uh, no. Why would you think that's the intent? That's backward. Making sure that all citizens are able to easily obtain the ID is something done to make sure there's no practical roadblocks to a mandatory ID; not the other way around.

So, in the Netherlands, the mandatory ID laws were established in such a way as to make sure there are practical roadblocks for their citizens when attempting to obtain that ID? Sounds like a great way to disenfranchise your citizenry, if that is what the Netherlands was going for. Why would you want to do that?

A mandatory ID is ridiculously useful in so many legitimate situations.

It's not all that useful if you are a legal citizen of the state, but the state has erected barriers to your obtaining that ID.

It is not absurd when you look at some of the States that have implemented voter ID, and how they used every trick they could think of to disenfranchise poor inner city voters.

That's not an argument against photo ID's or anything, though. That's an argument against partisan politicians.

When it is those partisan politicians instituting the laws, as is the case here in the USA, then it becomes and argument against those laws.

 

[Jokodo]

The reason for resistance to voter ID isn't the cost or inconvenience (for the poor) although that is the red herring that is thrown up. In my state, IDs are free and the government will send a van to anyone's home to take the photo and gather the required information, at no cost, if it is requested. And yet there is still opposition to IDs being required.

I remember some debates with Americans on ID in the past, right around the time when over here a mandatory ID card was introduced. There were people here who had the same arguments as the americans did; mostly relating to privacy and the like. The thing though is, that the mandatory ID hasn't infringed on privacy much, if at all. Having it with you has been nothing but an advantage, and the idealogical arguments against have all evaporated. Cost should definitely be brought down in the opinion of most people (though of course, the government isn't likely to just give up on forcing people to renew it for a solid fee every once in a while), but that aside; it's been a net positive.

When you say "mandatory ID", do you mean a national ID card (what we call "Personalausweis" in German"), or will any government issued photo ID serve the purpose? In Austria, while you should be able to identify yourself, few people have a Personalausweis. I carry my passport when I go abroad (even in countries where a Personalausweis would suffice), and otherwise identify myself with my driving license. Even a student ID from a public university counts as a state issued ID, and is sufficient identification for voting.

That's quite a difference between Austria and Germany. When I got myself a phone card there, they wanted to see a Personalausweis, something I do not possess. They ended up checking the box for Personalausweis and entering the number of my driving license.

 

[dystopian]

So, in the Netherlands, the mandatory ID laws were established in such a way as to make sure there are practical roadblocks for their citizens when attempting to obtain that ID? Sounds like a great way to disenfranchise your citizenry, if that is what the Netherlands was going for. Why would you want to do that?

Uh, really? That was your read of what I said?

It's not all that useful if you are a legal citizen of the state, but the state has erected barriers to your obtaining that ID.

No, it's still really useful in such a case; it's just harder to get.

When it is those partisan politicians instituting the laws, as is the case here in the USA, then it becomes and argument against those laws.

Uhm, no. The idea/law is good; the fact that there are politicians who try to fuck up the specifics of implementing said idea/law isn't an argument against the idea/law; it's an argument against those politicians.

 

[dystopian]

When you say "mandatory ID", do you mean a national ID card (what we call "Personalausweis" in German"), or will any government issued photo ID serve the purpose?

I mean a national id card. It's called an 'Identiteitskaart'; it contains your nationality, name, your BSN (a personal number id for all sorts of government related stuff), photo, RFID chip for verification and biometric information, birth place, length, sex, signature, and some other stuff. This card serves as a valid travel document for the entire EU, as well as Andorra, Liechtenstein, Moaco, Norway, San Marino, Turkey, and Switzerland. No passport needed. The ID card serves as a valid ID for all purposes.

 

[NobleSavage]

In case skepticalbip thought it was the gun license, but not student ID thing that I was making up, here's Texas' wonderful new law:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/us/supreme-court-upholds-texas-voter-id-law.html

The law, enacted in 2011, requires voters seeking to cast their ballots at the polls to present photo identification like a Texas driver’s or gun license, a military ID or a passport.

...

Justice Ginsburg also said the law “replaced the previously existing voter identification requirements with the strictest regime in the country.”

She noted that Texas would not accept several forms of ID that Wisconsin did, including “a photo ID from an in-state four-year college and one from a federally recognized Indian tribe.”

To get a gun license you have to show official state ID (at least in my state) When I got my college ID I just handed them a class schedule.

 

[KeepTalking]

Uh, really? That was your read of what I said?

Sorry, I seem to have misunderstood what you said. I reread our exchange, and I think I have the right interpretation now.

It's not all that useful if you are a legal citizen of the state, but the state has erected barriers to your obtaining that ID.

No, it's still really useful in such a case; it's just harder to get.

Well, it's harder to use something that is harder to get, but the point is moot, as it seems you were not advocating that there should be roadblocks to obtaining the ID, as I had previously thought.

When it is those partisan politicians instituting the laws, as is the case here in the USA, then it becomes and argument against those laws.

Uhm, no. The idea/law is good; the fact that there are politicians who try to fuck up the specifics of implementing said idea/law isn't an argument against the idea/law; it's an argument against those politicians.

If the law is deliberately fucked up in it's implementation from the start, then the law is no good. In these cases (most voter ID laws in the USA), you can't even say that the intent of the law is good, as the intent is to disenfranchise voters.

 

[KeepTalking]

In case skepticalbip thought it was the gun license, but not student ID thing that I was making up, here's Texas' wonderful new law:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/us/supreme-court-upholds-texas-voter-id-law.html

To get a gun license you have to show official state ID (at least in my state) When I got my college ID I just handed them a class schedule.

Both are photo IDs. Both can be used to make sure that the person showing up at the polls is the person who is registered to vote there.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In case skepticalbip thought it was the gun license, but not student ID thing that I was making up, here's Texas' wonderful new law:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/us/supreme-court-upholds-texas-voter-id-law.html

To get a gun license you have to show official state ID (at least in my state) When I got my college ID I just handed them a class schedule.

They just giving out class schedules to anyone these days?

 

[dystopian]

If the law is deliberately fucked up in it's implementation from the start, then the law is no good. In these cases (most voter ID laws in the USA), you can't even say that the intent of the law is good, as the intent is to disenfranchise voters.

Maybe, but I was talking about having a mandatory photo ID in order to vote in general; not the specific implementation that those partisan politics propose/utilize. The idea is sound, and shouldn't be thrown away just because people fuck it up for their own gain.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A Social Security number is required to work, most jobs do not require a photo ID to my knowledge. But what about the elderly, who have voted all their lives, and do not have an ID, do not work, and never drove a vehicle?

You need photo ID to become an employee--you're required to provide both evidence that you are you and that you are allowed to work.

Odd... I don't need a photo ID to get a credit card. Don't even need it to use a credit card. Don't need it to get life insurance. Or car insurance. Don't need an ID to shop online.

 

[laughing dog]

How exactly is his argument specious because he doesn't define free the way you do?

Getting an ID is not costles.

Do you take issue with his claim that a photo ID is a means to reduce voter fraud?

Yes.

Do you take issue with his claim that it's useful in many other areas of life?

No.

Or do you take issue with him stating that he can only imagine that the political opposition to them must be because some politicians believe it will eliminate their voter base?

Yes.

I don't see how any of this is called into question by whether or not a mandatory ID is free or not.

Since the ID is not costless, there may be legally eligible people for whom the cost of obtaining the ID is too high.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

ld, I don't know if the word "cost" is the most appropriate. The word "burden" may be more accurate.

 

[dystopian]

Do you take issue with his claim that a photo ID is a means to reduce voter fraud?

Yes.

On what basis? It serves as an extra layer of voter identity verification. Extra layers of security mean you increase the chances of detecting fraud. You might argue that it's secure enough as is (but obviously people disagree enough to make a big deal out of it); but that extra layer is sure to reduce the chances of fraud.

Or do you take issue with him stating that he can only imagine that the political opposition to them must be because some politicians believe it will eliminate their voter base?

Yes.

Why? Do you have some reason to think he's imagined other plausible reasons for the opposition?

I don't see how any of this is called into question by whether or not a mandatory ID is free or not.

Since the ID is not costless, there may be legally eligible people for whom the cost of obtaining the ID is too high.

Like I stated in a previous post; if your country has poverty to such an extend that you have a significant number of people who can't afford the cost of one (especially if your country also can't afford to help the poorest out when it comes to acquiring one, if they really can't afford the cost), then you guys have much bigger problems to worry about than whether or not foreign people can vote in your elections.

 

[maxparrish]

A refreshing breath of common sense. Whenever Americans hear the word "race" (coded in the words "the poor") we tend treat even dumb arguments as respectable.

Please don't assume I agree with you on matters of race or poverty, I'm pretty sure we don't.

I am equally sure we don't. However, like many in small countries, on this issue you reflect a level of pragmatism and common sense that Americans rarely have. When I read the english language press of (say NZ press) I am struck by the reasonableness, the lack of a pervasive strident stupidity in political commentary. In the US there is a belief that a sincerely held but stupid cliche makes for an intellectual and respected argument.

Let someone suggest that it is common sense to verify voting qualifications and some noodle will tell you a lurid tale about their Parkinson afflicted Aunt Grizelda who can't speak or write clearly and could NEVER obtain an ID. She may be able to find a way to apply for SSI, sign her checks, go through an intense paperwork process for Obamacare insurance and tax rebates BUT rest assured, poor Auntie just can't get an ID.

So what, one wonders, is the real motive behind such cognitively strained "argumentation" ?