The left has wanted Americans to register with the federal government and obtain a national id card ever since Franklin Roosevelt tried (and failed initially, until he stacked the court in 1937) to get the Supreme Court to rule that the Social Security system was constitutional.

Ever since then the left has been pushing the idea of registering Americans particularly in order that the federal government can dictate who can work.

In the 1990s it was the Clinton Goals 2000 program that resurrected the concept which conservatives vehemently opposed and prevailed, building upon Reagan’s vehement opposition to national ids in the 1980s.

However, today, national id has been resurrected both on the left and on the right.  On the right, it is being touted as the only way to tell who is here legally and who is not.  However, the actual animus behind the proposals being put forward by the right as the “solution” to the illegal immigrant problem comes directly from the left.

According to beatthechip.org

Legislators talked into surrendering privacy for security in the past by signing onto the Patriot Act and the Real ID Act (2005) seem content to move another form of national identity forward. The mandate would require all citizens to provide their biometrics [fingerprints, iris scans, DNA] on an ID card to work in America. This national ID initiative is the latest on the stack of many attempts to legislate the market for identity in America.

Interestingly in the 2000s, it was the “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” (read: amnesty) supporters such as John McCain, Jon Kyl and Senator Bennett (now defeated), who first put forward the concept of law-abiding Americans needing to get prior permission and prior clearance from the federal government before getting a job via Homeland Security’s e-Verify system.

Why would the left be touting something the right believes in so strongly as a solution to the illegal immigrant problem?

That’s the wrong question.  The right question is:  Why would the RIGHT be touting something the left believes in so strongly as being the solution to the illegal immigrant problem?

First of all e-Verify is the implementation of Hillary Clinton’s proposal from the early nineties: school-to-work, Goals 2000, federal government tracking of students through school and federal government targetting of who should be able to work and where they should work.

Secondly, e-Verify was first touted by the Council on Foreign Relations (the very same people who brought you the North American Union) as the system to use for amnesty, i.e. for employers to use to see who is employment eligible and who is not.  I.e. once amnesty passes, all of those who registered for amnesty would – POOF – overnight gain employment eligibility as verified via the e-Verify system.

At some point along the line since the early 2000s, either the right has been duped into adopting this federal top-down driven verification system as a solution, or they knowingly did so because, despite protestations to the contrary, they actually support the concept of a national id.

Further, beatthechip.org reports:

Over 2 years ago, the release of national ID card regulations in drivers licenses challenged advocates in new and unusual ways. Regulations had a tangible reach into State’s coffers as an unfunded mandate due to national law, the Real ID Act. The law became controversial through its association with the border fence, immigration, surveillance and tracking technologies, and its ability to deny citizens the ability to bank, to travel or enter federal buildings based on identity prerequisites….all 50 states are still being held to benchmark compliance deadlines. Many of these States will receive grant monies towards standardizing drivers licenses after appropriations were passed for Homeland Security operations.

So, I think as conservatives we really need to ask ourselves, why were our predecessors in our movement so vehemently opposed to national ids or Hillary Clinton’s school-to-work employment eligibility idea?

Do you know?  If you don’t, find out, or else you’ll find yourself in a position where you are betraying the hard work and dilligence of the hard-core conservative, limited government patriots who came before you.