These issues are really complicated because they aren’t left versus right. Conservatives and progressives both tend to be ideologically skeptical of enhancements/sharing of ID.

From a state perspective, there’s a lot of benefit to exchanging this type of information across state lines through AAMVA. It reduces a lot of fraud, avoids a lot of insurance issues that cost the state taxpayers a lot of money. It has a lot of benefits to things like commercial motor carrier safety that have a direct benefit to the public.

For example, New York does direct entity to entity sharing of many driving records with Ontario and Quebec. The Canadians benefited because I don’t allow people with DWIs to enter Canada, New York benefited by keeping unsafe truckers off state highways, who were exploiting certain pools in Canadian regulations.

It’ll take a bit of time, But the long game here is that the United States will have a national ID system.

The big conflict is that states issue licenses (AB 60 in California, “green light” in other places) without regard to the ability to provide legal documentation of legal residency. Advocates fear that the sharing will be used by the hypervigilant immigration bureaucracy. States don’t enforce immigration law, but every resident of a state is at risk if people are driving around without insurance or without being subject to driving licensing laws. This also allows populations like the homeless to get IDs, But it’s being used as a punching bag by right wing commentators, rallying against illegal alien truckers and other nonsense.

▲

tough 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Maybe if both left and right weren't just puppets for the capital that finances their superPACs it would be more believable that they're different things

	▲	gruez 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		How does sharing drivers license information help "capital"? Sure you can probably handwave some stuff about how sending that information helps the surveillance state which can be used to stop occupy wall st style protests, but it's not clear how that's more convincing than the other common refrain, which is that immigration (legal or otherwise) helps "capital" because it drives down labor costs.

▲

rectang 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Should voter ID requirements (a la "SAVE America" act or similar) become law, constitutional prohibitions on poll taxes will lead towards every citizen getting an ID at no charge.

	▲	SoftTalker 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Many states already have required ID for voting, and indeed a state ID card can be obtained from the DMV for a nominal cost, probably free in need-based cases.
	▲	Spooky23 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Don’t assume that. There’s a MAGA bro movement advocating against direct election of senators. The Supreme Court will do backflips to make the determination that they’re paid to make.

▲

fsckboy 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>These issues are really complicated because they aren’t left versus right. Conservatives and progressives both tend to be ideologically skeptical of enhancements/sharing of ID.

It's complicated within each party, but not overall. Idealogues prefer debating other idealogues because they use the same vocabularies and that preference is why they are always fighting, they like it. But the fat part of the curve in the middle is mostly made up of non idealogues who are quietly saying "can't you just shut up and compromise, let's be practical".

	▲	SoftTalker 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		If they would ever shut up and compromise, there would be no need for their ideology. That's why advocates almost never really solve the issues they are advocating about, because to do so would be to eliminate the thing that gives them attention and power.