sass

So at this point you're expecting every citizen to have to provide new photos every 5 years (that was what you said right ?),

Yes. But all I have to base that on is the photo id we use for drivers license in the frozen north. I think most jurisdictions now do photo id on drivers license without much problem? Or added expense. Hell, the DMV could be the site for the new ID cards too....
Only a seperate line for SS ID.
You do need a trigger to get people to requalify their photos. With drivers license its the potential fine when/if you are in a traffic stop. With a citizens ID? Elections i guess.

Back when the UK government was seriously considering the introduction of a mandatory ID card scheme the estimated cost ran into several billions of pounds, and this is the official figures where there was a vested interest in under-estimation. The population of the US is a good 6x ours, so you're now getting into the realms of tens of billions of dollars. But the scheme you're proposing is one that needs to be renewed every 5 years, which wasn't the case with the UK scheme. So now you're looking at tens of billions for the upfront costs plus billions more every year just to keep it running. Care to estimate whether this enormous boondoggle is going to produce tens of billions of dollars worth of benefits ?

How does the department of motor vehicles manage their program so well>?

Well firstly, you're not required to renew your driving licence every 5 years. Secondly, there is a very large cost involved in the process of licensing drivers. This would be more than doubled if you attempted to replicate that system for every citizen because not every citizen is licensed to drive.

I'm not saying it can't be done, just that it would cost a lot, take a long time to bring into force and I don't see that the benefits would outweigh the costs. You still haven't really spelled out what those benefits are btw....

sass

You still haven't really spelled out what those benefits are btw....

In Ontario we do have to renew our DL every 5 years. Health ID Card too. (insurance) both are photo IDs.
I think the benefits are, as I thought I described:
1) an answer to illegal immigration. That is a relatively inexpensive way to insure that employers are hiring people legally in the country. The theory being that if you can't get decent work, you generally go home. I'm not so sure what the economic benefits of this would be..... I strongly suspect that certain kinds of employers would have to increase wages to find workers (meat packers for instance). But would it alleviate social spending as some claim? Maybe...
2) would provide a way to eliminate the hyped up worries about election fraud.
The first would be a solution compared to ridiculous plans like building a border fence.... And would be 99.99999% of the benefit . I think the idea that voter fraud is widespread is a complete myth. There may be the occassional fraudster but not worth getting all worked up about. Still, I do think ID for voting is fair if the ID can be a card freely provided for those in need,
So what do you do if someone shows up at the polls in a hajib? Or a mask?

Hajib? You ask them to remove it, and show picture ID.
Mask? You ask them to remove it, and show picture ID,

There is no place for religion in the election process. (where did I hear that...)

I still have the same paper driving licence they first issued me with 18 years ago. It doesn't have a photo on it.

Look, my point is that the existence of a photo ID isn't going to magically do away with illegal working. Businesses are already required to check their employees documentation before employing them. Most don't bother, or at least they don't keep detailed records. That isn't ever going to change so long as employers have a financial incentive to turn a blind eye.

bbauska wrote:Hajib? You ask them to remove it, and show picture ID.

1. it's spelled 'hijab'
2. The hijab does not cover the face, it covers the hair, and is not far off what nuns wear. I think you mean 'niqab', or 'burka'.

Mask? You ask them to remove it, and show picture ID,

What if the mask is one of those used to keep recent burns sterile? Even if the mask was removable, a burn victim may not match their photo ID.

There is no place for religion in the election process. (where did I hear that...)

I don't know. I think perhaps you are being confused with the principles of secularism that suggest that religion should not get preferment from the State.

Sass - I have to say I didn't get any more clarity from Ricky on what the advantages of his scheme were. When it comes to immigration there are always ways around ID and documentation, and the main impact of strict enforcement will be that employers won't want to have to spend time (and money) being agents of the state.

Funny, you did not correct RickyP with his error, and I used the same spelling and put a "?" after it.

The separation of church and state comment was tongue in cheek considering the rules put in place that go against the Catholic church.

dan

When it comes to immigration there are always ways around ID and documentation, and the main impact of strict enforcement will be that employers won't want to have to spend time (and money) being agents of the state.

The law currently says that employers cannot hire illegal aliens. In effect, employers would be protecting themselves from prosecution for hiring illegal aliens. Just because some people will find ways to beat the system, doesn't mean you don't make the effort to improve the system.
What other laws aren't worth making, and enforcing because some people may successfully break them Danivon? Taxation? Burglary? Must perfection be attainable or is significant improvement not worth the attempt?
And by the way, the reason for the law is that illegal immigration is generally an economic problem. Poor citizens of southern nations who are taken advantage of by large corporations (and small employers..) in order to cut hourly wages . I always point to Meat packing, which halved hourly wages over 15 years using this tactic.
Those meat packers certainly don't want to be "agents of the state" because they would lose up to 80% of their work force. But they avoid prosecution under the current laws. How difficult would it be to move to e-verify and photo SS.? Not very. But if the initiative were undertaken I'd bet the largest industries preying on the "undocumented" would fund major lobbying efforts to avoid following the law.

I still don't see how 'E-verify' would be any more effective than simply requiring employers to check passports and/or green cards.

What percentage of Americans have passports?

The quick answer is this: Yes, most Americans do not have a passport. The number of Americans who have a passport, according to the most recent statistics issued by the State Department in January of 2012, is 117,014,020.

Given the country’s population of 311,591,917, that means about 38% of the American population has a passport. This means nearly 2 out of 3 Americans can’t even fly to Canada, let alone travel to anywhere else in the world. (New rules allow those with “Passport Cards” to travel to Canada, Mexico, parts of the Caribbean and Bermuda, but they are not allowed to be used for international air travel. There are about 4.5 million Americans who have this card.)

bbauska wrote:Funny, you did not correct RickyP with his error, and I used the same spelling and put a "?" after it.

To be honest, I barely read what ricky writes these days. Too much hard work for little reward ;-)

Anyway, my point on burn masks?

The separation of church and state comment was tongue in cheek considering the rules put in place that go against the Catholic church.

Man, they got the compromise that they wanted, and still people think they are being oppressed. Bunch of whiny wousses! (and now they are doing something similar over here, sending a letter to all churches over gay marriage).

Ricky, the number of Americans who have a passport is irrelevant. For the most part it's going to be blindingly obvious to an employer that somebody is a foreign national. Sure, there may be some American citizens of hispanic descent who don't have an American accent or whatever, but this will be rare. The way you're talking it's as if all these employers out there really want to conduct thorough background checks on their staff but they just can't do it because they lack a handy online verification system. the reality is that if you're employing a foreigner you know full well that you're doing it, and so if you don't demand to see their green card before hiring them it's because you don't really want to check too closely. The way to deal with that is by having much stricter penalties for employers who hire illegals combined with greater resources dedicated to enforcement. Compulsory ID cards for all citizens wouldn't make much difference, if any.