Our new National ID card - or not.

My wife Won was a citizen of Korea, and a Permanent Resident of the United States. (She also passed her citizenship test.)

When she died, I spent a day in Seoul Korea with her mother, registering her as deceased, and turning in her Korean National ID card.

I had quite a bit of experience, through her, with how her National ID card was used. For instance, in order to sign up for an email address with Hanmail.net, she had to use her Korean Resident Registration Number to verify that she was eligible to have a Korean email address. She also had to use her ID to sign up for a "Hulu" style Korean television website.

It's difficult to be anonymous online in South Korea. It is difficult (if not impossible) for a Korean speaking foreigner to get access to a Korean website dedicated to Korean nationals.

But their is a way around this - Identity theft. Many Koreans just 'borrow' another Korean's Resident Registration Number. Someone did that with a former South Korean president, and gained access to hundreds of porn websites. (If you get caught doing that you can be jailed for up to 3 years and fined as much as $9000.)

In Korea you need your National ID card to open a bank account, get married, go to school, buy or rent a home or car. You are required to display your National ID card upon demand by law enforcement or military officials. You must have the card in order to travel to some places in South Korea (especially near the Demilitarized Zone.) You display your ID when cashing a check, and if you pay your utility bills in cash, you might still be asked to show your ID.

If you lose your card, you must get it replaced immediately (and fill out a form as to how and where you lost it.) If you are caught by police without the ID card they may hold you until they can verify your citizenship. I'm told that this could be an unpleasant process, depending on how you act and what mood the police are in.

But in many ways a Korean National ID card is used much like an American Driver's License is used for identification. The difference is that in Korea, everyone is issued this card at the age of adulthood (about 19 years old).


Americans have traditionally been very defensive about their right to privacy. We think that some things are not the Government's business. Stop and Identify statutes in the US require that you give your real name to an officer upon demand - but until the new Arizona immigration law came out you were not required to produce legal identification. (But failing to produce ID upon demand makes you look suspicious, and an officer has the right to detain suspicious looking people... so...)

There is also a very strong religious sentiment against any sort of national identification. In the Bible, Revelation 13:16-18 seems to talk about a form of identification without which "no one is allowed to buy or sell things". Korea's National ID card would seem to fill that bill - without a Resident Registration Number a Korean could not open a business, get a business license, or buy public services such as cable television or electricity.

We Americans are also still suffering from "Red Scare". We recognize the dangers of political power narrowly held by an elite faction or individual, and anything that smells remotely of totalitarianism gives us the heebie-jeebies. Conservatives and Liberals both point to legislation that they say are signs of impending totalitarianism. A national ID card is one item that both camps seem to agree on.


Arizona's new immigration law, and someone's Twitter comments, got me thinking - what if America DID have a national ID card? Would it be so bad? And then I found out that we DO have a National ID card. Sort of.

It's called the Real ID Act of 2005.

In 2005, Congress enacted the "Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005". This act (PDF link) became public law in order to:
Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes.
The Real ID portion of this act is contained in the "other purposes" section.

According to Real ID, drivers licenses will be required to display the citizenship status of every card holder. The issuers of state drivers licenses are also required to verify the card holder's citizenship with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. If a Resident Alien is here on some sort of temporary status, then his or her drivers license will have an expiration date that reflects that status.

In California, my drivers license is good for 10 years. Under this new law, it must be renewed every 8 years.

As part of this law, states would be required to link their license and ID databases and share driver / citizen data by a state compact called the Driver License Agreement. The DLA is also connected with (or accessible to) foreign countries. From what little I've learned about the DLA, if you commit a traffic offense while visiting another state, you may be charged as if you had broken the law in your home state.

Real ID was supposed to take effect in 2008, but due to opposition, and technical difficulties, the deadline has been extended to 2011. As you might imagine, there has been some serious opposition to this act from Conservatives and Liberals. Some states have passed laws or resolutions that refuse to implement Real ID. Democrats talk about how the Real ID technology will allow the government to track your every move, eroding privacy. Republicans are claiming that Real ID will (further) erode State's sovereignty, giving another State right to the Federal Government.

With all of this controversy, I don't think that Real ID will be implemented. I didn't even know it was current law until yesterday - the DMV hasn't said anything about it to me, so I guess California is waiting to see if they will have to comply first.


I'm an American Citizen, and yet I'm not required to carry any sort of identification that proves that I am a citizen. Oddly, my wife was required by law to carry identification that proved she was NOT an American Citizen, but once she had been sworn in, she would also not be required to carry identification that proved she was a citizen. Even the new Arizona law does not require people in Arizona to carry proof of citizenship - police officers just subject suspects to a citizenship verification process that might take several days to complete. (hint - it goes much faster if you carry your passport!)

I'm still unsure what I think about an American National ID card, whether we enact a de facto national ID like the Real ID act, or a real national ID like South Korea, Japan and China - or if we just keep our current status quo. On one hand, I can see how a totalitarian government like China might misuse such an ID. But on the other hand I saw how it allowed Won to enjoy benefits granted to her by South Korea, benefits that were denied to me because I was not a Korean citizen.

I think I'm going to continue looking for good arguments both for and against this issue until I can make up my mind on it. Right now, the only reason I have for really liking the idea of a national ID card is that I'd get to see conservative religious leaders turn purple as they bang their bibles in protest of Satan's mark.

Hmm. Maybe if we use an implantable microchip instead of an ID card...

Read More...

That beastly Arizona Immigration Law

Well, Arizona’s got a new law. Arizona State Bill 1070 (called the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act”) was signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer.

According to Governor Brewer: (PDF link)
This bill, the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, strengthens the laws of our state.  It protects all of us, every Arizona citizen and everyone here in our state lawfully.  And, it does so while ensuring that the constitutional rights of ALL in Arizona remain solid – stable and steadfast.
Really?  That's great.  So what does this law say?  Let's take a look at SB1070 (PDF link):
20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

Wow!  That's great.  So what is a "lawful contact"?  It could be a traffic stop, a sobriety checkpoint, an age verification check in a bar, or even a random encounter on the street.  In Arizona it is lawful for a police officer to stop a citizen and ask for his or her name -  as long as that police officer thinks the person is "suspicious".  This is also a "lawful contact", and so the police officer can now ask for proof of citizenship too.

But this law says that the officer must have "reasonable suspicion" that the person stopped is an alien!  But, what does that mean?

During a press conference on Friday, (April 23rd) Governor Brewer was asked, "What does an illegal immigrant look like?"  She answered,
"I do not know.  I do not know what an illegal immigrant looks like.  I can tell you that... I think there are people in Arizona that assume they know what an illegal immigrant looks like.  I don't know if they know that for a fact or not.  But I know that if AZ Post gets their selves together, works on this law, puts down the description, that the law will be enforced civilly, fairly, and without discriminatory... ah... points to it.
"Without discriminatory points" - so, it's not profiling.  After all, who is to say that the illegal immigrant is a brown person from Mexico?  I've known a couple of illegal immigrants from Korea, and another from France.  And we've all heard stories about illegals bringing their children into the country at a young age, who grew up speaking colloquial English.  It is possible that the cute blond-haired girl next door who goes to high school with your son might (just might) be in America illegally!

Just because you are a blond-haired redneck driving a pickup truck with a confederate flag on the bumper, it doesn't mean that you are NOT an illegal alien.  In order to not discriminate, Arizona police should ask for proof of citizenship during ANY "lawful contact".  Racial profiling has been ruled illegal by the Supreme Court, so if a citizen suspects that he or she has been profiled merely because he or she is brown - then they can take the police to court.

Phoenix Arizona Vice Mayor Michael Nowakowski is concerned about possible civil suits that may result over racial profiling.  He has said that he will meet with the Phoenix City Council and the Police Chief in order to discuss his proposal to:  "ask every person that's pulled over by the city of Phoenix Police Department, or called to their homes, to ask for their citizenship"

So what's the harm in that?  If you hate illegal immigrants, it may seem like such a small inconvenience to produce your "proof of citizenship".  The comments from people on Twitter, or in the comment sections of news organizations that are reporting on this law seem to indicate that quite a few people are happy to show their citizenship to police upon demand.

This is a fundamentally bad idea, and is an embarrassing comment on the state of civics education in America.

Do you have proof of citizenship with you right now?  I'd suggest that most Americans do not. 

What qualifies as proof of citizenship?  I was married to a legal non-resident alien for 23 years.  (She had passed her citizenship test but wasn't sworn in.)  As a legal non-resident she had both a driver's license and a Social Security Card.  Personally, I no longer have a social security card, and haven't carried one since slightly after I joined the US Air Force in 1984. 

A legal non-resident can very quickly become an illegal alien who is still carrying a valid driver's license and Social Security Card.  Looking at this on the street, a police officer can't tell a legal from an illegal.

What about a birth certificate?  A piece of paper with an official looking seal on it... but it isn't a photo ID.  Just looking at one will also not prove citizenship.

As far as I can tell, the only documents that a policeman can examine and reasonably determine that you are a citizen or a legal alien are a passport, a military ID card, and (funny enough) a Permanent Resident Card - also known as a "Green Card".

What does a police officer do when you give him your license and registration?  According to the Arizona law, he just follows Section 1373(c) of Title 8 of the United States Code.  (PDF link)  That law merely states that the INS (now USCIS) shall:
respond to an inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information.
And how does he do this?  It's simple, he just logs onto the USCIS "E-Verify" website from his patrol car, and makes an inquiry as to whether you can legally work in the United States. 

SB1070 also says that it is lawful to detain someone while the verification is in process, and it allows the officer to arrest, "without a warrant" the suspect if that officer has, "probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States."  Really?  What does that mean if the officer "has probable cause to believe" that a suspect has committed the "public offense" of being in the US illegally?  This would seem to be a "catch 22" situation.  It would seem to give an officer a free pass to arrest or "detain" anyone on a pretense.

So, what does the USCIS have to say about the E-Verify system?  I found the section on "Tentative Nonconfirmations" to be very interesting.  Apparently the USCIS system doesn't always work!
E-Verify works by comparing the information employees provide on the Employment Eligibility Verification form (Form I-9) against millions of government records. Generally, if the information matches, the employee receives an "Employment Authorized" response in E-Verify. If the information does not match, the employee is given an opportunity to resolve the problem.

A Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC) response means that the Social Security Administration (SSA) and/or the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) could not confirm that the employee's information matches government records. It does not mean an employee is unauthorized to work or is an illegal immigrant as there are legitimate reasons why an employee may receive this result.
Whups! So sorry, you aren't in the "system"!  That's too bad.  But maybe there's a problem on the E-Verify side.  How long will it be until they fix that problem?
For those cases requiring manual review, E-Verify will first return a "DHS Verification in Process" response, and will then usually provide an initial verification result within 24 to 48 hours.
Well, 48 hours doesn't seem too bad does it?  But according to the E-Verify manual, if you receive a DHS Tentative Nonverification, the process could drag out.  Here's what the manual says: (PDF link to manual)
DHS VERIFICATION IN PROCESS: This response indicates that the non-citizen’s information provided to SSA matches the information contained in SSA records, but did not match DHS’ records. The case is then automatically referred to DHS for further verification. You do not need to take any action at this point. DHS will respond to most of these cases within 24 hours, although some responses may take up to three (3) Federal government workdays. You should check the system daily for a response.
I hope you didn't get pulled over on a Friday night!  You might not make it back to work until next Thursday!

But, that's okay, because you are in jail.  You can call a lawyer to help you out, and call your wife and employer to let them know where you are... right?  Maybe - maybe not.  The new Arizona Law seems to have wording that indicates that during this process you are only being "detained", and not actually "arrested".  If you were arrested, you'd have the right to a lawyer, and can make a phone call or two.  But if you're only being detained you do not have those rights.

There is no mention in this new law about what would happen to your vehicle during this time if you were detained during a routine traffic stop.  My guess is that it will be towed and impounded.  If so, then you would be told to pay the fees for towing and impounding.

So let's get back to the pickup-truck driving "bubba" in a Peterbilt hat with an "America, Love it or leave it" sticker on the bumper.  Even with all I've said here, Bubba might still be in favor of this new Arizona law because he's White, darn it!  And not brown like some illegal Mexican!  Enforce the law 'cause Bubba won't get pulled over!

Has Bubba given any thought as to how many Hispanics are on his local Arizona police force?  A few of these might even be what Fox News commentators lovingly call an "anchor baby".  I would think that these people, over everyone else, will make sure that the law is applied fairly to everyone, light or dark skinned.

There is also no provision to allow access to the E-Verify system from an officer's patrol vehicle. What if you're pulled over in Leupp Arizona, population 970 - with a total of SIX white residents? The police there are probably going to be using a dial-up connection to verify your citizenship. I hope they have a fast modem!


I don't know how this law will turn out.  I'll bet that it will soon be challenged in court.  Meanwhile legislators in Texas are planning on a similar bill - Texas State Republican Debbie Riddle (R-Tomball) has said she plans to file a similar bill.

And I have to ask - what logical outcome will be the result if other states (or the Federal Government) implemented similar laws?  Even if the USCIS (a bureau of Homeland Security) got its act together and provided instant identification of citizenship, there is still a possibility of a problem if the database crashes, or the police department loses it's data connection.  But why should we worry about that?  It's not like Homeland Security ever makes mistakes.

Instead of relying on a computer database, what if all American citizens just carry a National ID card?  The Real ID Act of 2005 was enacted by Congress to modify Federal Law in order to change your driver's license into a national ID card.  That would work just fine for this purpose - a police officer could just examine your compliant driver's license / National ID card, and determine if you are a citizen or not. 

I've seen something just like this in South Korea.  When traveling by bus near the Demilitarized Zone, we often had to stop at a police checkpoint where a stern faced policeman (backed up by another policeman carrying an M-16) walked up and down the bus isle looking at everyone's national ID.  (I showed them my military ID during these stops.)

Hey, it works for them.  it should work here too.

Of course, there might be some protest from Christians who are worried about the fulfillment of Revelation 13:16-18.

Read More...

Ob-La-Di - and all the rest of that...

Wow, has it been over a month since my last blog entry?

This month has been very healing for me. I'm becoming comfortable in my own home. I'm getting out and doing things for myself. I read, work in my woodshop, and go to work. I'm glad I have CVAAS, but I'm starting to look at becoming active in other groups too.

I'm trying to learn how to juggle my activities now. Now if you invite me somewhere I'm likely to whip out my phone and pencil you into my personal calendar.

Won is still on my mind, but there is very little pain now unless I allow myself to dwell on our life together.

I'm making plans. I should be able to buy the pickup truck I want sometime in September. I'll move out of our apartment after Thanksgiving. (I'll start looking for my new place when I get my truck!)

I still have so much to do. I have so many nick-nacks and stuff that no longer has any value to me that I need to get rid of. It's discouraging. I'm keeping those things that have meaning to me. Many of the pretty items that Won bought had value only to her... the wire peach tree with leaves and fruit made from carved jade is very expensive, but doesn't mean as much to me as the ugly little cup that she made with her own hands in pottery class. The jade tree is up for sale... the cup - no way!

And I've had it hinted to me that maybe I need to go on a date. Perhaps. But not just yet.

Read More...