Tag: immigration reform

Don’t BELIEVE the Hype—Though Unformed, the Democrats’ National ID Plan Is Rife With Threats to Privacy and Civil Liberties

Senate Democrats have solidified and given more definition to their plan to create a biometric national ID, the centerpiece of their immigration reform proposal. (For reasons unrelated to the national ID plan, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has dropped out of the picture for now.) The “Conceptual Proposal for Immigration Reform” they released last week gives much more detail to the sketchy plans I previously reviewed.

In my Cato Policy Analysis, “Electronic Employment Eligibility Verification: Franz Kafka’s Solution for Illegal Immigration,” I wrote about the possibility of a work authorization document limited to that purpose—and my doubts that the government would adopt one.

A credential such as eligibility for employment under [the immigration laws] can be proved without creating a nationwide biometric tracking scheme. In fact, templates already exist. But it is unlikely to see adoption… . [I]dentification and tracking … shift the risk of error in the card-issuance process from the government to the citizen… . [T]racking preserves government power. A work-eligibility and tracking system … makes the individual’s employment eligibility subject to revision at a later time, if the government wants to change the rules or adapt the system to new purposes, for example.

Those doubts are validated by this plan, which appears to be a full-fledged national ID and national biometric database. Assurances that it won’t be used for purposes beyond immigration control are not persuasive. This is national identity and surveillance infrastructure that will be “switched on” by later policy changes.

They’re calling it “BELIEVE,” short for “Biometric Enrollment, Locally-stored Information, and Electronic Verification of Employment.” They can call it that. We’ll study it, and give credence to what we learn.

The plan is confusing, disorganized, repetitive, and sometimes contradictory. Summarizing it is a little like trying to piece together the egg when all you have is the omelet, but three themes emerge: First, this summary backs away from an earlier claim that there would not be a biometric national identity database. There will be a national biometric database. Second, repeating the word “fraud-proof” does not make this national ID system fraud proof. Third, this national ID system definitely paves the way for uses beyond work authorization. This is the comprehensive national identity system that people across the ideological and political spectrum oppose.

The national ID part of the Democrats’ proposal begins at the bottom of page eight. It’s a veritable word-cloud, suggesting a violation of the rule of thumb that simple solutions are usually the best. But let’s look at it, line by line.

Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this proposal, the Social Security Administration will begin issuing biometric social security cards.

That’s pretty darn ambitious. Watch for any national ID plan to take several years to get started, decades to complete. The REAL ID Act—a simpler proposal than this one—has been law for five years and not a single compliant card has yet been issued. Not one.

These cards will be fraud-resistant, tamper-resistant, wear resistant, and machine-readable social security cards containing a photograph and an electronically coded micro-processing chip which possesses a unique biometric identifier for the authorized card-bearer.

All these things are easier said than done. And “fraud-resistant”? That’s unlikely. We won’t know until we see details.

The card will also possess the following characteristics:

We’ll take them in chunks.

(1) biometric identifiers, in the form of templates, that definitively tie the individual user to the identity credential;

Cards have biometrics today—low-tech ones like your picture and a copy of your signature printed on it. Here, “biometric identifiers” probably refers to machine-readable biometrics like fingerprints or iris scans. The card wouldn’t have an image of the biometric itself, but rather a mathematical description of its key features—the arches, loops, and whorls in your fingerprint and their distances from one another, for example. Research continues into how secure these algorithms are against future high-tech versions of identity fraud.

(2) electronic authentication capability;

This is pretty opaque, but it confirms again that the card will have a computer chip. “Authentication” is a word without a distinct meaning—what fact will be proven to whom, and how will it be proven? We have to learn more.

(3) ability to verify the individual locally without requiring every employer to access a biometric database; (4) offline verification capability (eliminating the need for 24-hour, 7-days-per-week online databases);

This is two ways of saying roughly the same thing. How will this goal be achieved? Without more information, the privacy and security issues are hard to assess. 

A freestanding ability to verify individuals without accessing a biometric database implies that there will be a biometric database, a likelihood I noted earlier.

(5) security features that protect the information stored on the card; (6) privacy protections that allow the user to control who is able to access the data on the card;

Security protects privacy so these two features are siblings if not one feature. But these opaque claims don’t tell us much at all. Knowing what exact card security features the plan envisions would allow an assessment of their quality. They could be anything from distributing RFID-chipped cards with a metallic sleeve that many users will lose or fail to use—almost no protection at all—to using a card that will only reveal data when the biometric of the authorized bearer is presented to the card.

The best protection for privacy and data security is not collecting people’s identity information in one place at all, nor organizing it uniformly on a card everyone must have. A technically secure national ID card isn’t privacy protective when the bearer is practically or legally required to release the information on it. Pushing card security as a privacy feature is like looking for your keys under a lamp post. The light may be better there, but you haven’t solved the privacy issues by securing the card.

(7) compliance with authentication and biometric standards recognized by domestic and international standards organizations.

This feature conflicts with the privacy claims in the previous bullet. Compliance with standards increases the likelihood that the national ID system will interoperate with other national governments’ systems and with corporate systems. Picture a future not too far off when every government collects and shares data on every citizen and foreigner using a consistent identity system. This is an efficiency feature with huge privacy and liberty costs for individuals.

The new biometric social security card shall enable the following outcomes:

One by one:

(1) permit the individual cardholder to control who can access their information;

This is the same as characteristic (6) above.

(2) allow electronic authentication of the credential to determine work authorization;

We got this from characteristic (2) above.

(3) possession of scalability of authentication capability depending on the requirement of the application.

This jargon cloud doesn’t mean anything discernible, but it does suggest that this national ID system is being designed for multiple uses. Let’s start with some terms:

“Scalability” is the idea that a technology still works well “at scale.” A system that works will with 10 users may not work well with 10,000, and a system that works well with 10,000 users may not work well with 10,000,000 or 100,000,000. So the idea here is that it will work well with many users. It’s not enough just to say that, of course. We should know specifically how it would meet the challenges of scale.

“Authentication”—again, a poorly defined term—means adequately proving some fact, such as a person’s identity, his or her work authorization, and so on.

“Application”—another favorite word in the tech lingo—simply means “use.” A hammer has many different applications: pounding in nails, denting metal, bonking intruders on the head, and so on.

So the sentence translates roughly to: “The card system will handle large numbers of people no matter what it’s used for.”

That’s telling, because the next line in the plan claims that the system will only be used for work authorization. If it’s only used for work authorization, why would it need to handle large scale for other authorization applications?

Possession of a fraud-proof social security card will only serve as evidence of lawful work-authorization but will in no way be permitted to serve—or shall be required to be shown—as proof of citizenship or lawful immigration status.

Repeat: If this is true, why does the card work at scale for other authorization applications?

The use of the word “permitted” suggests that the card will be capable of other uses, but such uses will be barred by law. Once again, if the plan is to use the cards only for work authorization, why not design the cards to serve only that purpose and no other?

And there’s “fraud-proof” again. The plan says little or nothing about what makes the card fraud-proof. In my earlier assessment of the national ID plan as it stood then, I discussed the three different meanings the concept of “fraud-proof” may have in an identity system, and the difficulties of achieving all three.

It will be unlawful for any person, corporation; organization local, state, or federal law enforcement officer; local or state government; or any other entity to require or even ask an individual cardholder to produce their social security card for any purpose other than electronic verification of employment eligibility and verification of identity for Social Security Administration purposes.

Confirmed: This will be a multi-purpose identity card. Most of the public will be barred by law from asking for the cards, but it will perform “verification of identity for Social Security Administration purposes.” That means, at the very least, that it can display Social Security Number and probably name. It will be convertible to lots of other purposes when mission creep takes hold.

Legal rules against using the card for new purposes don’t mean very much. If you create a system with rules like that in place, they might be in place for a while, but policymakers will think of new uses for the card, people and organizations use the card unlawfully for a while, and the weight of these “misuses” will break down the legal barriers. The national ID system created for one limited purpose will be “switched on” and it will become the full-scale surveillance device that freedom-loving Americans abhor.

No personal information will be stored on the electronic chip contained within the social security card other than the individual’s name, date of birth, social security number, and unique biometric identifier.

What more do you need? Presenting these identifiers allows organizations, public and private, to easily identify people distinctly in their data stores. Highly accurate tracking systems will grow up around this identity system, many of which provide convenience and other benefits, but the sum total of which will be a federal-government-fostered surveillance society.

And, by the way, an encrypted work authorization (see below) can act as an identifier—that’s more personal information—unless the card’s design takes some very impressive steps to prevent that.

Under no circumstances will any other information, including medical information or position-tracking information, be contained within the card.

This is nice protection—and if it’s a bar on radio frequency identification, fine—but putting these protections in law is rather quaint, though. A bar on additional data going on the card may hold up for a few decades, but it will ultimately give way to new demands for data on the card to fix some new policy problem.

And, remember, the card itself is not the only source of privacy concern. The card will facilitate highly accurate record-keeping about people’s locations when they use the cards. Location tracking may not be integral to the card, but the card will be integral to location tracking.

The Secretary of Homeland Security shall work with other agencies to secure enrollment locations at sites operated by the federal government.

Yes, you need to secure enrollment facilities or people will break in and steal equipment and data. I’m not impressed that DHS will be involved in providing physical security to SSA, and I bet SSA isn’t either.

Prior to issuing an individual a new fraud-proof social security card, the Social Security Administration will be required to verify the individual’s identity and employment eligibility by asking for production of acceptable documents to be provided by the individual as proof of identity and employment eligibility.

Yes, that’s how you do it. This is the step in the card issuance process that is probably the weakest. Forgery and corruption attacks are a function of the value to which the card controls access.

(Again with the unsubstantiated “fraud-proof”!)

The Secretary of Homeland Security will work with the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration to verify non-citizens’ employment authorization.

As they must. DHS has the info on naturalized citizens and non-citizens legally in the country.

SSA will also be required to engage in background screening verification techniques currently used by private corporations that use publicly available information that can be derived from the individual’s social security number.

This is a new one—doing database background checks on applicants for the new national ID. Rather than using only the documents proffered by the applicant for the card, the Social Security Administration would look up the claimed SSN of the applicant and see if his or her story checks out. For example, the system might compare the address claimed by the applicant to addresses that are found in public or private records. (“Publicly available” is ambiguous.)

This is a way of reducing fraud in the issuance of cards. (Mind you, it doesn’t make the process “fraud-proof!”) But it also raises new issues, particularly if the background check on the applicant will be run against private commercial data. The DHS Privacy Committee has twice issued cautionary documents about using commercial data in government applications. There are many issues, including privacy and due process, if indeed the intent is to use private databases to run background checks on applicants for a government benefit.

An administrative adjudication process can be invoked in the event that an individual is unable to establish his or her identity or lawful immigration status. Adverse decisions can be reviewed in the federal courts.

You’re gonna need it. The full range of appeals will be required if this card indeed will be used to control access to work. Some important decisions have to be made about whether a person can work while their appeal is pending. If an appeal fails, should the appellant be arrested and deported as a presumptive illegal immigrant? Expect to see stories of people who lack documentation and fixed addresses—the very poor, recovering drug addicts, and so on—who cannot prove their existence to the SSA or who don’t pass their background checks. They will find themselves unable to work because their government has denied them an officially recognized identity.

There will be a multi-stage process of re-verification if an individual claims he lost his previously issued fraud-proof social security card to ensure that there is no identity-theft or unlawful collaboration of identity.

I noted in my previous analysis that a database-free identity system is very difficult to administer, such as for replacing lost cards. The plan to address this challenge is unclear. Someone who has lost a card will have to return to the SSA and take part in this “multi-stage process of re-verification”—whatever it is—perhaps waiting to work until it has been completed. I have no idea what “unlawful collaboration of identity” is.

There will also be a multi-stage process for resolution of proper identity if an individual claims an identity tied to a social security number that has been claimed by another individual.

More undefined, but “multi-stage” processes, when a person comes to the Social Security Administration and finds that someone else has already claimed the same identity. Will they be able to work during the pendency of their “multi-stage” processing?

Tough penalties will be put in place for fraud in procurement of a fraud-proof social security card.

This raises a metaphysical question: Can there be fraud in a “fraud-proof” card? Of course there can. There is no fraud-proof card, which is why you have to penalize fraud, hoping to suppress it.

The same penalties shall apply for conspiracy to commit fraud if false information is intentionally provided.

Let’s spend just a moment on the capacity of criminal penalties to suppress fraud. It’s easy for people like us—wealthy and highly educated—to assume from the comfort of our offices that criminal penalties will suppress fraud. After all, prison looks pretty awful compared to an office. But an illegal immigrant has a different calculus. Going to jail and getting “three hots and a cot” is not a bad outcome compared to repatriation to a life of hunger and political instability in one’s home country. Committing fraud in the interest of “legitimate” work is preferable to theft or violence aimed at getting money and food here. Criminal penalties won’t suppress fraud as well as many might imagine.

Employers hiring workers in the future will be required to use the newly created Biometric Enrollment, Locally-stored Information, and Electronic Verification of Employment (BELIEVE) System as a means of verification. There will be strict employer penalties for failure to participate in the BELIEVE system after being notified of a requirement to do so by the Secretary of Homeland Security or after the BELIEVE system has been fully implemented nationwide such that it is required to be used by all employers.

E-Verify has too many problems. Renaming it will help!

Prospective employees will present a machine-readable, fraud proof, biometric Social Security card to their employers, who will swipe the cards through a card-reader to confirm the cardholder’s identity and work authorization.

More than two pages into the summary, we’re back to the basics of the card and what it does. We already know that the card is not fraud proof. What’s new here is that employers will have to have card readers—an additional inconvenience, expense, and barrier to hiring new employees.

What this fails to mention is that the machine will have to be able to process machine biometrics—fingerprint reading or iris scanning, for example. These are not inexpensive machines, their use will probably require training, and they must have very high accuracy in all conditions or they will produce a mountainous administrative burden on employers and workers.

We also learn from this—again—that this will not be a simple work authorization system, but a national identity system. Running the card through a machine (and checking the bearer’s biometrics) will reveal identity.

Again, we’re looking at mission creep: With all these cards and machines in place, able to prove identity, why wouldn’t they be applied to new purposes like airline security? Checking in at hotels? Confirming identity at office building entrances? Administration of government benefits? Proof of identity in credit card transactions? Night and weekend access to office buildings and parking lots? Traffic stops?

The cardholder’s work authorization will be verified by matching a digital encryption key contained within the card to a digital encryption key contained within the work authorization database being searched.

Here’s a new notion—the use of encryption. But how encryption would be used is far from clear. Presumably, a signal that the bearer of the card is work authorized (referred to here as an “encryption key”) would be released by the card and matched against information (also referred to as an “encryption key”) in a database. It is highly doubtful that either item of data is actually an encryption key, as an encryption key is the code used to encrypt or decrypt the information you are trying to work with. Most likely, work authorization data will be encrypted on the card. Somehow or another, once presented, that encrypted data will be decrypted and show that the bearer of the card is work authorized.

This contradicts statements above saying that the system won’t require access to a central database. Perhaps it envisions public key encryption, in which a private key scrambles the work authorization data and a public key de-scrambles it. I doubt that PKI is up to this. If the private key were released or reverse-engineered, the system would fail because forgery of work authorizations would then be easy.

This project has a long way to go before it articulates a card system that can securely confirm work authorization without connecting to a database.

The cardholder’s identity will be verified by matching the biometric identifier stored within the micro-processing chip on the card to the identifier provided by the cardholder that shall be read by the scanner used by the employer.

This is confirmation that it is not just a card reader, but a biometric reader. It is also confirmation that the system will confirm identity, not just work authorization. Prepare for mission creep.

Two-and-a-half pages of summary information reveals little more than the wall of complexities behind the Democrats’ plan for a national identity system. It repeats as an incantation the words “fraud-proof” even while it admits that criminal penalties are needed to tamp down fraud. The summary ratchets back from the dubious claim made earlier that there wouldn’t be a national biometric database—there almost certainly would be. The summary confirms that the card system would be used to confirm identity, not just work authorization. That sets it up for mission creep—expansion to new uses and data collections that plunge us into a surveillance society.

Indeed the mission creep begins with this very plan. When employer sanctions don’t sweep the country clean of visa overstayers, these ID cards will be used to hunt them down inside the country. From page five:

In addition to increasing border enforcement, this proposal will substantially enhance our capabilities to detect, apprehend, and remove persons who entered the United States unlawfully and persons who entered lawfully on temporary visas but failed to leave the country when designated.

Will these removal plans be carried out through a system of checkpoints at which all Americans have to present their national ID card? Will private providers of financial services, health care, housing, or retailing be required to check a person’s national ID card? Or will the entire nation adopt an Arizona-style law that requires law enforcement to examining the papers of people “reasonably suspected” of remaining in the country illegally?

The Democrats’ national ID plan raises all these questions and many more. My colleague Dan Griswold has the true answer:  To control the border, you must first reform immigration law.

Ron Paul, the Chamber of Commerce, and Economic Freedom

Tim Carney has a blog post at the Examiner that’s worth quoting in full:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has issued its 2009 congressional scorecard, and once again, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Tex. — certainly one of the two most free-market politicians in Washington — gets the lowest score of any Republican.

Paul was one of a handful of GOP lawmakers not to win the Chamber’s “Spirit of Enterprise Award.” He scored only a 67%, bucking the Chamber on five votes, including:

  • Paul opposed the “Solar Technology Roadmap Act,” which boosted subsidies for unprofitable solar energy technology.
  • Paul opposed the “Travel Promotion Act,” which subsidizes the tourism industry with a new fee on international visitors.
  • Paul opposed the largest spending bill in history, Obama’s $787 billion stimulus bill.

(Rep John Duncan, R-Tenn., tied Ron Paul with 67%. John McHugh, R-N.Y., scored a 40%, but he missed most of the year because he went off to the Obama administration.)

I wrote about this phenomenon last year, when the divergence was even greater between the Chamber’s agenda and the free-market agenda:

Similarly, Texas libertarian GOPer Rep. Ron Paul—the most steadfast congressional opponent of regulation, taxation, and any sort of government intervention in business—scored lower than 90% of Democrats last year on the Chamber’s scorecard.

Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., had the most conservative voting record in 2008 according to the American Conservative Union (ACU), and was a “taxpayer hero” according to the National Taxpayer’s Union (NTU), but the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says his 2008 record was less pro-business than Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton.
This year’s picture was less glaring, but it’s still more evidence that “pro-business” is not the same as “pro-freedom.” The U.S. Chamber is the former. Ron Paul, and the libertarian position, is the latter.

I suspect that on issues such as free trade agreements and immigration reform, I might be closer to the Chamber’s position than to Ron Paul’s. But to suggest that Paul is wrong to vote against business subsidies – or that DeMint was wrong to vote against Bush’s 2008 stimulus package and the $700 billion TARP bailout – certainly does illustrate how much difference there can be between “pro-business” and “pro-market.” Instead of “Spirit of Enterprise,” the Chamber should call these the “Spirit of Subsidy Awards.”

Three Steps to Comprehensive Immigration Reform

Congress can and should pass comprehensive immigration reform in 2010. Any legislation worthy of the name would:

1) offer legalization to undocumented workers who have been here for several years, pass a security check, and pay a reasonable fine and back taxes;

2) create a temporary-visa program sufficient to meet future labor needs of a growing economy; and

3) enforce the law against those who still insist on working outside the system, but in a way that does not restrict the freedom of American citizens.

Reform would reduce illegal immigration by offering a legal alternative. It would tighten border security by allowing U.S. agents to focus on intercepting real criminals and terrorists, not dishwashers and gardeners. And it would expand output, investment, and job opportunities for middle-class Americans. Polls show a majority of Americans will accept the three-fold approach to reform. Recent elections confirm that support for reform is a modest plus with swing voters, and a huge plus with Hispanics.

This is an issue where both major parties can work together to fix our immigration system in a way that boosts the economy, enhances security, and expands liberty.

For more, see Cato’s research on immigration.

Topics:

Ending the Black Market in Low-skilled Labor

Alex Nowrasteh and Ryan Young of the Competitive Enterprise Institute make the case for immigration reform in an especially appealing way in a fresh op-ed this week in the Detroit News.

In a commentary article titled, “Fix immigration rules to crush black market,” they dissect a well-meaning but flawed Obama administration effort to fix the dysfunctional H-2A visa program for temporary farm workers. Instead of fine tuning an unworkable law, Nowrasteh and Young advocate liberalization:

That means making H-2A visas inexpensive, easy to obtain, and keeping the related paperwork and regulations to a minimum. That means no minimum wage hike. No costly background check requirements. People rarely break laws that are reasonable and easy to obey.

When legal channels cost too much in time and money, people will turn to illegal channels every time. That’s how the world works. Getting rid of immigration’s black market begins with admitting that fact.

Hear, hear.

A Post-Health Care Realignment?

From Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal to Joe Biden’s Big F-ing Deal, progressives have led a consistent and largely successful campaign to expand the size and scope of the federal government. Now, Matt Yglesias suggests, it’s time to take a victory lap and call it a day:

For the past 65-70 years—and especially for the past 30 years since the end of the civil rights argument—American politics has been dominated by controversy over the size and scope of the welfare state. Today, that argument is largely over with liberals having largely won. […] The crux of the matter is that progressive efforts to expand the size of the welfare state are basically done. There are big items still on the progressive agenda. But they don’t really involve substantial new expenditures. Instead, you’re looking at carbon pricing, financial regulatory reform, and immigration reform as the medium-term agenda. Most broadly, questions about how to boost growth, how to deliver public services effectively, and about the appropriate balance of social investment between children and the elderly will take center stage. This will probably lead to some realigning of political coalitions. Liberal proponents of reduced trade barriers and increased immigration flows will likely feel emboldened about pushing that agenda, since the policy environment is getting substantially more redistributive and does much more to mitigate risk. Advocates of things like more and better preschooling are going to find themselves competing for funds primarily with the claims made by seniors.

I’d like to believe this is true, though I can’t say I’m persuaded. It seems at least as likely that, consistent with the historical pattern, the new status quo will simply be redefined as the “center,” and proposals to further augment the welfare state will move from the fringe to the mainstream of opinion on the left.

That said, it’s hardly unheard of for a political victory to yield the kind of medium-term realignment Yglesias is talking about. The end of the Cold War destabilized the Reagan-era conservative coalition by essentially taking off the table a central—and in some cases the only—point of agreement among diverse interest groups. Less dramatically, the passage of welfare reform in the 90s substantially reduced the political salience of welfare policy. The experience of countries like Canada and the United Kingdom, moreover, suggests that if Obamacare isn’t substantially rolled back fairly soon, it’s likely to become a political “given” that both parties take for granted. Libertarians, of course, have long lamented this political dynamic: Government programs create constituencies, and become extraordinarily difficult to cut or eliminate, even if they were highly controversial at their inceptions.

We don’t have to be happy about this pattern, but it is worth thinking about how it might alter the political landscape a few years down the line.  One possibility, as I suggest above, is that it will just shift the mainstream of political discourse to the left. But as libertarians have also long been at pains to point out, the left-right model of politics, with its roots in the seating protocols of the 18th century French assembly, conceals the multidimensional complexity of politics. There’s no intrinsic commonality between, say, “left” positions on taxation, foreign policy, and reproductive rights—the label here doesn’t reflect an underlying ideological coherence so much as the contingent requirements of assembling a viable political coalition at a particular time and place.  If an issue that many members of one coalition considered especially morally urgent is, practically speaking, taken off the table, the shape of the coalitions going forward depends largely on the issues that rise to salience. Libertarians are perhaps especially conscious of this precisely because we tend to take turns being more disgusted with one or another party—usually whichever holds power at a given moment.

The $64,000 question, of course, is what comes next. As 9/11 and the War on Terror reminded us, the central political issues of an era are often dictated by fundamentally unpredictable events. But some of the obvious current candidates are notable for the way they cut across the current partisan divide. In my own wheelhouse—privacy and surveillance issues—Republicans have lately been univocal in their support of expanded powers for the intelligence community, with plenty of help from hawkish Democrats. Given their fondness for invoking the specter of soviet totalitarian states, I’ve hoped that the folks mobilizing under the banner of the Tea Party might begin pushing back on the burgeoning surveillance state. Thus far I’ve hoped in vain, but if that coalition outlasts our current disputes, one can imagine it becoming an issue for them in 2011 as parts of the Patriot Act once again come up for reauthorization, or in 2012 when the FISA Amendments Act is due to sunset. In the past, the same issues have made strange bedfellows of the ACLU and the ACU, of Ron Paul Republicans and FireDogLake Democrats.  Obama has pledged to take up comprehensive immigration reform during his term, and there too significant constituencies within each party fall on opposite sides of the issue.

Further out than that it’s hard to predict. But more generally, the possibility that I find interesting is that—against a background of technologies that have radically reduced the barriers to rapid, fluid, and distributed group formation and mobilization—the protracted health care fight, the economic crisis, and the explosion of federal spending have created an array of potent political communities outside the party-centered coalitions. They’ve already shown they’re capable of surprising alliances—think Jane Hamsher and Grover Norquist.  Suppose Yglesias is at least this far correct: The next set of political battles are likely to be fought along a different value dimension than was health care reform. Precisely because these groups formed outside the party-centered coalitions, and assuming they outlast the controversies that catalyzed their creation, it’s hard to predict which way they’ll move on tomorrow’s controversies. It’s entirely possible that there are latent and dispersed constituencies for policy change outside the bipartisan mainstream who have now, crucially, been connected: Any overlap on orthogonal value dimensions within or between the new groups won’t necessarily be evident until the relevant values are triggered by a high-visibility policy debate.  Still, it’s reason to expect that the next decade of American politics may be even more turbulent and surprising than the last one.

Senator Graham’s Inexplicable National ID Support

Compromise is catnip in Washington, D.C. That’s my best guess at why Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) would endorse New York Senator Chuck Schumer’s (D) widely reviled plan to create a mandatory biometric national ID system.

Schumer’s national ID plans have no more definition today than when he wrote about them in his 2007 campaign manifesto Postitively American. Among the thin gruel of that book is a two-page lump displaying more ignorance than understanding of how identity systems work and fail. Schumer doesn’t know the difference between an identifier—a characteristic used to distinguish or group people—and an identification card or system, which does the entire task of proving a person’s previously fixed identity. (My thin gruel on the topic is the book Identity Crisis: How Identification is Overused and Misunderstood.)

“All the national employment ID card will do is make forgery harder,” says Schumer.

No, that’s not all it would do: It would also subject every employment decision to the federal government’s approval. It would make surveillance of law-abiding citizens easier. It would allow the government to control access to health care. It would facilitate gun control. It would cost $100 billion dollars or more. It would draw bribery and corruption into the Social Security Administration. It would promote the development of sophisticated biometric identity fraud. How long should I go on?

Senator Graham’s take is equally simple: “We’ve all got Social Security cards,” he said to the Wall Street Journal. “They’re just easily tampered with. Make them tamper-proof. That’s all I’m saying.”

No, Senator, that’s not all you’re saying. You’re saying that native-born American citizens should be herded into Social Security Administration offices by the millions so they can have their biometrics collected in federal government databases. You’re saying that you’d like a system where working, traveling, going to the doctor, and using a credit card all depend on whether you can show your national ID. You’re saying that bigger government is the solution, not smaller government.

The point for these senators, of course, is not the substance. It’s the thrill they experience as nominal ideological opponents finding that they can agree on something, securing a potential breakthrough on the difficult immigration issue.

They’re only ”nominal” ideological opponents, though. Chuck Schumer has always been a big government guy—and long a supporter of having a national ID, despite the lessons of history. Lindsey Graham is not really his ideological opponent. Typical of politicians with years in Washington D.C., Graham is steadily migrating toward the big-government ideology that unites federal politicians and bureaucrats against the people.

Sen. Schumer’s Immigration Reform Is a National ID

So reports the Wall Street Journal:

Lawmakers working to craft a new comprehensive immigration bill have settled on a way to prevent employers from hiring illegal immigrants: a national biometric identification card all American workers would eventually be required to obtain.

It’s the natural evolution of the policy called “internal enforcement” of immigration law, as I wrote in my paper, “Franz Kafka’s Solution to Illegal Immigration.”

Once in place, watch for this national ID to regulate access to financial services, housing, medical care and prescriptions—and, of course, serve as an internal passport.