Lawrence00
Senior Member
I'm rooting for the populace to block this evil.
Digital ID required to work in UK?
- Thread starter Michael Z
- Start date
David777
Well-known Member
- Location
- Silicon Valley
In the USA, this has been playing out for decades with the E-Verify employment program, greatly monkeywrenched by a range of groups often for self serving economic reasons and fear of 1984-like scenarios. It is true, that in non-democratic societies, such can be horribly abused by tyrants. In today's telecommunication world within free societies, I am confident adequate public oversight can be reasonably built in, though those against it, will continue to foam at the mouth screaming, about its dangers because that is what resonates in simple minds of vast masses. And to be clear, I also support moving towards a national ID that similar groups that benefit from hidden identities like illegal immigration advocates, also strongly dislike.
AI Overview, Google: which groups are blocking e-verify legal status
Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers, along with a diverse range of business and advocacy groups, have historically voiced opposition to E-Verify or specific mandates regarding its use. Concerns vary from fears of government overreach and employer burden to worries over inaccuracy and potential discrimination. No single group has successfully blocked its overall legal status, as E-Verify remains a federal program, though states and specific interest groups have placed their own restrictions on its use.
Key groups and their arguments for blocking or limiting E-Verify include:
Civil liberties and immigrant rights advocates
Privacy and discrimination concerns: Groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Cato Institute have warned that E-Verify's expansion could pave the way for a national ID card and potentially lead to discrimination against citizens and work-authorized immigrants.
Inaccuracy: Critics have long pointed to the system's rate of "false positives," which wrongly flags authorized workers as ineligible, creating a roadblock for legitimate employment.
Business and agriculture associations
Labor shortages: Organizations like the American Farm Bureau Federation have opposed mandatory E-Verify, particularly for labor-intensive industries like agriculture, out of fear of significant labor shortages if the system were enforced without broader immigration reform.
Employer burden: Some small businesses and industry groups argue that mandatory E-Verify imposes a significant financial and administrative burden, citing the costs of implementation and the complexity of compliance.
System flaws: Other business groups point out that E-Verify is not foolproof and that relying on it can still leave employers vulnerable to legal liability if they hire undocumented workers who have used stolen identities.
Some Republican lawmakers
Big government concerns: While E-Verify is generally supported by conservatives as an enforcement tool, some, like Representative Thomas Massie, have opposed mandatory expansion. They cite concerns over government overreach and the potential for federal databases to be misused, arguing it could become "Patriot Act 2.0".
State-level disputes: The issue can also become a point of contention between state and federal government. For example, some states have attempted to limit or prohibit the use of E-Verify by their own employers, with the federal government challenging those laws.
Democratic lawmakers in some states
Protecting workers: Some states with Democratic-controlled legislatures, such as Illinois, have attempted to pass legislation that bans or severely restricts the voluntary use of E-Verify. In 2023, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker vetoed such a bill, citing "irreconcilable drafting errors," after initially supporting it to protect workers' rights.
The E-Verify system has also faced temporary interruptions
Government shutdowns: As a government program, E-Verify is vulnerable to federal budget issues. During government shutdowns, the system can become temporarily unavailable, preventing employers from using it.
AI Overview, Google: which groups are blocking e-verify legal status
Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers, along with a diverse range of business and advocacy groups, have historically voiced opposition to E-Verify or specific mandates regarding its use. Concerns vary from fears of government overreach and employer burden to worries over inaccuracy and potential discrimination. No single group has successfully blocked its overall legal status, as E-Verify remains a federal program, though states and specific interest groups have placed their own restrictions on its use.
Key groups and their arguments for blocking or limiting E-Verify include:
Civil liberties and immigrant rights advocates
Privacy and discrimination concerns: Groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Cato Institute have warned that E-Verify's expansion could pave the way for a national ID card and potentially lead to discrimination against citizens and work-authorized immigrants.
Inaccuracy: Critics have long pointed to the system's rate of "false positives," which wrongly flags authorized workers as ineligible, creating a roadblock for legitimate employment.
Business and agriculture associations
Labor shortages: Organizations like the American Farm Bureau Federation have opposed mandatory E-Verify, particularly for labor-intensive industries like agriculture, out of fear of significant labor shortages if the system were enforced without broader immigration reform.
Employer burden: Some small businesses and industry groups argue that mandatory E-Verify imposes a significant financial and administrative burden, citing the costs of implementation and the complexity of compliance.
System flaws: Other business groups point out that E-Verify is not foolproof and that relying on it can still leave employers vulnerable to legal liability if they hire undocumented workers who have used stolen identities.
Some Republican lawmakers
Big government concerns: While E-Verify is generally supported by conservatives as an enforcement tool, some, like Representative Thomas Massie, have opposed mandatory expansion. They cite concerns over government overreach and the potential for federal databases to be misused, arguing it could become "Patriot Act 2.0".
State-level disputes: The issue can also become a point of contention between state and federal government. For example, some states have attempted to limit or prohibit the use of E-Verify by their own employers, with the federal government challenging those laws.
Democratic lawmakers in some states
Protecting workers: Some states with Democratic-controlled legislatures, such as Illinois, have attempted to pass legislation that bans or severely restricts the voluntary use of E-Verify. In 2023, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker vetoed such a bill, citing "irreconcilable drafting errors," after initially supporting it to protect workers' rights.
The E-Verify system has also faced temporary interruptions
Government shutdowns: As a government program, E-Verify is vulnerable to federal budget issues. During government shutdowns, the system can become temporarily unavailable, preventing employers from using it.
I feel a bit conflicted about digital IDs rolling out, especially since tech is not everyone’s cup of tea. My dad barely uses his old flip phone, and to imagine him having to deal with digital IDs for everyday stuff is a headache. At the same time, online scams and bots seem to be everywhere, so some kind of secure way to prove you're a real person could come in handy if done right.
Speaking of personal privacy, in the past few months I registered as a patient with a couple of new doctors. The multi-page form started out with the usual name, address stuff, but on about page 3, they started asking what educational level I reached, what my ethnic background is, and even better, what gender they put on my birth certificate! I guess they don't dare ask what gender you are any more.
If they need this information for medical research, I can understand it being legitimate, but going to a new doctor to treat my carpal tunnel syndrome does seem a little far-removed from gender, ethnic background, etc. Why is everything about a person now considered everyone's business?
If they need this information for medical research, I can understand it being legitimate, but going to a new doctor to treat my carpal tunnel syndrome does seem a little far-removed from gender, ethnic background, etc. Why is everything about a person now considered everyone's business?
Lawrence00
Senior Member
Happy Heart
Member
Oh yes, they claim it is all for medical research but in reality, they sell your information to corporations and foreign countries.
VaughanJB
Scrappy VIP
I have a simple question.
Define "Digital ID".
Given that we're identified (in the UK) by our National Insurance number, our NHS number, out Drivers License Number, and our associated credit rating - what is happening in addition to this here?
ps: It is rumored here in the UK that soon, in order to enter the US, we're going to have to give up five years of our social media accounts. How is this not digital ID?
Define "Digital ID".
Given that we're identified (in the UK) by our National Insurance number, our NHS number, out Drivers License Number, and our associated credit rating - what is happening in addition to this here?
ps: It is rumored here in the UK that soon, in order to enter the US, we're going to have to give up five years of our social media accounts. How is this not digital ID?
Last edited: