You’re right, it doesn’t, but once the momentum starts that train just keeps-a-rollin, which is exactly why it’s a slippery slope.
Although @LurksNoMore calls your particular photo a fallacy, slippery slopes have to get started somewhere.
4 Likes
An optional identity document for crossing international borders that a local domestic LEO can’t demand someone produce as proof of identity.
Authoritarian nation-states don’t always grant passports to their citizens even if they’re wanted, but they do require that everyone have a national ID card (e.g. the kennkarte to which @ChuckV alludes with the image).
7 Likes
So, to you, BY DEFINITION, a way of discerning citizens of a nation from others from those who are not makes a nation-state automatically, irredeemably authoritarian?
So, to you, any proof of identity is an imposition of unjust law?
Because that’s not a slippery slope, that’s a wacky, wild and wet warerfall, with no bittom
Please quote where I said or implied that I’d answer “yes” to any of that. Otherwise, stop trying to put words in other people’s mouths.
You asked a question about the difference between a passport and a national identity card, one which I assumed was genuine based on your seeming ignorance of the difference. I answered it factually.
8 Likes
Given his packing of the courts with his handpicked and unqualified sycophant judges, it’s increasingly likely that his outrageous trial balloons will become policy. Most of them have ultimately been upheld by the courts.
Few thought his Muslim ban, border wall fund reappropriation, ACA repeal, emoluments violations, obstruction of investigations, transgender military ban, or any other number of things would ever get as far as they did, but here we are.
6 Likes
Sadly, it’s not a fallacy, in this particular case; IMO, all of this recent fuckery has been a ‘litmus test’ to see what TPTB can get away with…
6 Likes
Okay: What, to you, is a way a nation-state can identify it’s citizens – and citizens can identify themselves as part of the nation-state – that is not axiomatically authoritarian and bad?
Remind me again, what exactly is the R position on “states’ rights”? Because it seems like they only hate this concept when states are doing things they don’t like such as legalizing weed, gay marriage, obstructing ICE, etc. When it comes to things like institutionalized racism and discrimination, abortion restrictions, taking away healthcare, and religion in schools they are all preaching the sanctity of the tenth amendment.
I think I get it — if states are giving you more freedoms, tenth amendment be damned. If states are taking freedoms something away or forcing religion into secular institutions then it’s all good, gents!
So now that’s out of the way I’m more confused than ever about the R position on “freedom” and “liberty”. Sigh. It’s just hypocrisy all the way down.
7 Likes
You aren’t required to use a passport for domestic travel or proof of identity.
6 Likes
People can and do identify themselves as citizens of one nation-state when crossing international borders using a passport. Not every citizen of a country is required to have one, and in authoritarian countries they’re restricted.
Domestically, in a non-authoritarian country, there’s no real need for the state to require that people carrying documents proving themselves citizens or residents of one class or another. Identity documents, including national IDs, do exist in non-authoritarian countries, but they exist as much if not more for the convenience of the carrier (e.g. lets them drive, pay taxes, sign a legal document) as they do for the convenience of the authorities and law enforcement.
5 Likes
I feel a little ragged here: A passport isn’t required, but it is if you want to fly; a national ID card is bad, and your DL isn’t a form of ID.
So again: How can citizens prove citizenship? Or do we just run America on the honor system?
That is correct, yes. They use whatever power is handy to enforce white, patriarchal structures… if that means appealing to “states rights” to ensure equal protection is abolished, they’ll do it, but if it means instituting unequal structures on the states, they’ll appeal to supremacy clause. The goal is to retain the hierarchy by whatever means necessary, because freedom and liberty is only for some.
Pretty much…
6 Likes
This is where you lose me, good sir. No real need? Come on.
Only if you’re traveling internationally.
Why do you need to “prove your citizenship” for activities within our borders? This isn’t a fascist dictatorship (yet). The Constitution applies to all persons in the country.
6 Likes
Incorrect. Until recently you could avail yourself of the convenience of flying with a state driver’s license. Real ID now puts a national standard on that, but doesn’t indicate citizenship status.
6 Likes
Excellent question.
8 Likes
The Constitution applies to all persons in the country thanks to a specious-at-best Supreme Court decision.
There are many times demonstrating accord with laws and social norms would require proving citizenship, or would make you want to prove it.
Hypothetical: You go to a civilized democracy – Canada, New Zealand, Japan, Germany. You destroy your ID. You then try to survive, gain employment, sustain yourself. How well do you think that will turn out?
The need you’re citing for a national ID card is that it be used to prove citizenship status domestically. The U.S. seems to function well without that, using other optional documents to prove it in specific and appropriate situations (mainly, being able to get a job that pays taxable income – an SSI number and sometimes a work visa does the job there).
6 Likes
Like what? Klan rallies? Showing an ID card to prove your identity isn’t the same as showing proof of citizenship.
5 Likes
