By Matt Holdridge<\/p>\n
From Time Magazine<\/a><\/em>:<\/p>\n Could a national identity card help resolve the heated immigration-reform divide?<\/p>\n Two Senators, New York Democrat Chuck Schumer and South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham, certainly seem to think so. They recently presented an immigration-bill blueprint to President Barack Obama that includes a proposal to issue a biometric ID card — one that would contain physical data such as fingerprints or retinal scans — to all working Americans.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n We’ve seen this attempt before. Again, the argument by Graham and Schumer is full of holes and danger as Time<\/a><\/em> points out<\/a>. <\/p>\n The sheer scale of the project is a potential problem, in terms of time, money and technology. The premise of using a biometric employment card (which would most likely contain fingerprint data) to stop illegal immigrants from working requires that all 150 million–plus American workers, not just immigrants, have one. Michael Cherry, president of identification-technology company Cherry Biometrics, says the accuracy of such large-scale biometric measuring hasn’t been proved. “What study have we done?” he says. “We just have a few assumptions.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Furthermore, a biometric card possesses too many opportunities for abuse by clever criminals and most of all, the government itself. <\/p>\n Lillie Coney, associate director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, believes that keeping biometric information out of a centralized database is “the biggest challenge.” Otherwise, she says, the prospect of having millions of fingerprints on hand would be too tempting for the government not to abuse. In their op-ed, the Senators said the information would be stored only on the card.<\/p>\n Although the card is being presented as existing solely for determining employment eligibility, “it will be almost impossible to say that this wealth of information is there, but you can only use it for this purpose,” Coney says. “Privacy is pretty much hinged on the notion that if you collect data for one purpose, you can’t use it for another.” Calabrese expresses worries that this ID will become a “central identity document” that one will need in order to travel, vote or perhaps own a gun, which Melmed calls “mission creep.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n As C4L President, John Tate said “This is exactly the type of battle that often decides whether a country remains free, or continues down a slide toward tyranny<\/a>.” <\/p>\n\n
\n
\n