Nationalize U.S. Driver’s Licenses


Pro: One Country, One Driver’s License

Everywhere in the U.S. people are approached and asked the question: “May I see some identification please?” The main form of verification is a driver’s license, issued by a state. But these state-specific licenses are not necessarily the best identification for drivers. The U.S. should stop issuing state-specific driver’s licenses and instead issue nationalized driver’s licenses.

Why? First of all, it would cut red tape for Americans who move from state to state. On top of changing addresses, doctors, and jobs, do we really need the hassle of using personal or vacation days to stand in line at the division of motor vehicles to obtain a new state-specific driver’s license? It would be easier to have your records stay intact when you move from state to state.

National licenses would also make it harder for motorists to conceal bad driving records. And they’d serve as a boon to national security, according to the Homeland Security Dept., a proponent of the Real ID Act. This measure establishes countrywide standards for driver’s licenses to ensure the authenticity of those licenses Americans present when boarding commercially operated airline flights and entering federal buildings or nuclear power plants.

Although the Real ID Act was signed into law by President Bush in 2005, objections from numerous states have halted implementation of its measures, and it may not go into effect until 2011. We live in a huge country with a wonderful diversity of peoples. But let’s all unite under one driver’s license.

Con: Blueprint for Big Brother

You don’t have to be an excitable George Orwell devotee to be turned off by the idea of a nationalized driver’s license. The chief logic behind such a scheme is simple: Standardized identification will curb fraud and bolster national security. But such reasoning is deeply flawed.

A national driver’s license would simply create a gold standard for identity fraud. There would be, in other words, a single, uniform ID for potential thieves and even terrorists to falsify. In contrast, the current multiplicity of identification standards means a number of forms of identification are typically required, making it more difficult to commit fraud. Security is strengthened by the redundancy and overlap in the current system.

Moreover, such an idea is not feasible. The burden of implementation would largely fall to states, whose budgets already are under extreme duress. The cost to standardize countless bureaucratic processes and databases, retrain personnel, and properly inform the public about changes would be enormous­—prohibitively so.

Last, and perhaps most important, national ID in any form is antithetical to basic U.S. principles of self-government. America’s identity and economic prosperity have been, and continue to be, founded on an unfettered mobility. Boundlessness is in the national DNA. A national driver’s license, without much justification, would unnecessarily constrain us.


Reader Comments


Con. This is another step toward a national ID card. The "drivers license" part will only be in name. In the real world: "Show me your papers please."


National driver's license/ID is not only a good idea but also a must since 9/11. The payback in savings/bureaucracy alone will justify this transition. Moreover, said ID should be a smart ID with encoded info to prevent identity theft and other fraud. No brainer, should have already been implemented.

Jay Baruch

A smart ID encoded with my genetic blueprint, embedded GPS chip at birth; what's next for the State?


How much money would it cost to make identical every driver's license issuance process across all 50 states? Where would the money come from in the current budget environment? Whether or not you want to do it, where would the dollars come from?

robert comizio

A national license and a national ID are both needed in these times in order to attempt to deter or identify would-be terrorists and identity thefts. Any paranoid worries about "big brother" and extrapolations to further state controls should not distract us into not doing what is necessary. We always call for government intervention in times of disaster and economic crisis--do these times not qualify?


Con. Just another usurpation of states' rights. The citizens of each state, not the federal government, are entitled to determine the requirements for driving privileges in their respective states. Nothing about the type/form of the license prevents the states from sharing their information with other DMVs, police agencies, and the DHS. Stop obsessing over uniformity.



It's better than what we have today.

Redundancy is not an enhancement at all but a flaw in the system that allows people to go to other states and get ID or licenses they should not have.

I live in a three-state convergence area, and it's common for multiple DUI offenders and others with suspended licenses to play the current system and just get a new license across the border.

Big Brother issues exist now and won't be enhanced by moving to a more common standard.

T Yen Vu

Con (more like federal government con-artists).

To Hell with the federal government and its consolidated police state. We've been had, people.

Our Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves, and all we do is whine about inconvenience.

Scott Kuhn

Con. Con. Con. In this age of ultra-fast computers and access to information, everything is already shared between the agencies that need the information. A national ID card is not a solution to any problem we have right now as a country.


With national databases of people and their essential documentation, laws that allow warrantless wiretapping and spying on U.S. citizens and residents, people are worried about a police state because they would have a single ID for all states?

We already live in a country where federal laws trump anything states do and national intelligence agencies have the green light to do almost anything they want in the name of national security or "fighting the war on terror." If a universal driver's license is the sign of tyranny, where are the outcries against the Patriot Act and its other incarnations by executive order? They endanger individual and state's rights a lot more than a credit-card-sized piece of plastic.

Finally, what about European countries with no federal system? They have one ID for everything (the passport) and yet, they're not Orwellian dictatorships. They don't even have anything close to a Patriot Act. Their police tactics are more invasive than in America, though, and don't require their equivalents of the NSA, the FBI, or the CIA to get involved for the rough stuff.


We do not need a national driver's license. What we need is a functional state, federal, and local government system, instead of the present dysfunctional government. As long as the American taxpayer settles for the present system of a dysfuctional government on all levels, we deserve what we get.

Freddie Steel

For the sake of convenience Americans have proved they are willing to make concessions. We like to commute in our own vehicles as opposed to taking mass transit. We prefer making those short jaunts in our gas guzzlers instead of being eco or health conscious--it's asking too much to expect us to walk or ride a bike. American will, in my opinion, gladly make concessions for what they consider to be issues of survival and not just issues of convenience.

I believe we are on a pre-planned strategy to move the entire globe to a single method of exchange. History tells us that nations that have been rescued by the IMF see a collapse or near collapse of the currencies, infrastructure, etc., along with a list of concessions to be met in exchange for the assistance. The almighty green back is really no longer the almighty. The largest economy in the world is the Eurozone. The dollar has become a liability and has shaken the world's economies and the nations affected tell us, in essence, fix it now and don't let it happen again.

Good commerce calls for open international exchange of goods, data, and money, but at the same time this openness makes nations vulnerable. A singular ID system settles the security, travel, and commerce issues. I see this as an inevitability and is spoken of in prophetic statements in the Bible. The Books of Daniel, Ezekiel, etc., tell us in prophetic illustrations that this global amalgamation is already pre-determined and inevitable. It will also be used by a global religious system and, eventually, a global leader who will master the economies, politics, and religions.
Yes, I am against these kinds of information-gathering programs, but I also see that, if delayed, they will nevertheless, be a reality some day.
Freddie in Chicago

Mr Ce

To cut red tape--go federal? LOL.



The books that have been interpreted to offer supporting evidence for the cataclysm in Revelations as well as Revelations itself, talk about Rome in metaphors and allusions. To the writers of the New Testament, Rome was an evil power that controlled the world they knew, and the Emperor with his tyrannical laws and global standards was in charge of everything.

People have been worried about the end times for the last 2,000 years and seeing it in everything from a new currency to a new country to a major war that caught the world's attention, not to mention epidemics and whenever a polarizing figure rises to power.

To some evangelicals in America, Obama's rise to popularity was a sign that he was the supposed anti-Christ:


Another power grab by the Feds. Nationalized driver's licenses will only make it easier for bad guys to do bad things.


We don't need nationalized driver's licenses (each state has different laws, etc.). However, we do need a national ID. In fact, we already have one (it is called a Social Security number). It is just a lousy easy to steal and easy to fake SS card. We need to get rid of the existing cards and come up with an ID card that has your picture and is not easy to fake. It makes it much easier to determine who is in this country legally.


I have an ID in my state, and that is more than enough. Screw Big Brother. While we are at it, let's get back to an asset-based monetary system so our money will have real value. My copy of my birth certificate, which is not a top secret document, was issued by Republic of California. Born in a military hospital on good old U.S. soil. Not like some cowards who are afraid to reveal their actual papers. (Hint, Hint: Barry Soetoro)


Solid arguments on both sides, but ultimately I have to go Pro. A very convincing argument was made by Scott, because despite the "beware Big Brother" bleating in many of the comments so far, there are real world issues now with unsafe/illegal drivers. In response to Jim above that it is a state's right to determine who drives in the state, I'd agree if no one could drive across state borders. One final note. For those who moan and groan (add in whine and cry) about measures designed for security and safety purposes as "Big Brother" and fed power grabs, can I sue you for making me less safe when we have another 9/11 attack because you won't let the government do its job? I figure if you can sue successfully for getting a cup of coffee that is too hot in the U.S. legal system, I'd have a pretty good shot at your money. Any takers?


Why are drivers being singled out to have a "uniform" ID? We already have a national ID card--the passport. It covers you from birth and you don't have to know how to drive to get one. Arguably, it's harder to fake the documentation needed to obtain one. And, the money saved from trying to unify 50 DMVs, can be used to make the passport harder to counterfeit.


I have a couple of more arguments for a national ID.

I am a resident of Connecticut. A few months ago, I got a speeding ticket in New York state. My correct name is "Senthil Karumalai," which is reflected in my Connecticut ID. But when the NY cop gave me a ticket, I found my name as "Karumalai Senthil." The cop insisted that the system in his vehicle actually showed the name as "Karumalai Senthil." I feel this error compromises national security to a great extent.

I asked the same cop, how many points will I get? He was not sure, as he doubted whether the Connecticut and New York systems actually do talk. So, if anyone has a bad driving history, she can move to a nearby state and start her history afresh.


Anyone who commented attributing a national ID card to prevention of terrorism is an idiot. All the 9/11 [terrorists] had legitimate licenses and would have received one under a national ID program. Any insinuation that a national ID could prevent a terrorist act also ignores more frequent domestic terrorist acts (Tim McVeigh, Olympic Park Bomber, Unabomber, and ecoterrorists). And a national ID did not prevent the subway bombing in London, subway attack in Japan, or train attacks in Spain. Not to say a national ID does not have benefits, but clearly preventing terrorists is not one of them. For all who still think a national ID is the cure, thank god Bush is out so an intelligent conversation can begin on the issue.


I'm not sure we need to have a national license, but I think that we need to have better standards for verifying the identity of people when they apply for a driver's license in this country. I also think that there is no reason for a person to hold more than one active license at a time. My thought here is more focused on highway safety, but limiting a person to one active driver's license would benefit homeland security too.

Also, I don't buy the "gold standard" argument. When we use our credit cards, a small message is sent electronically to some authority that verifies the card, authorizing the transaction. The same concept could be used when we use our driver's license or any other form of ID such as a passport, to open a bank account or board an airplane. A quick electronic verification would identify any identity fraud. If I can download a movie to my cell phone in the middle of Manhattan, we can certainly set up the technology to do these quick little checks to prevent identity fraud.

Amara Moosa

I am a proponent of the national ID system. Based on my past experiences from living and working in different states, having one driver's license will make life a little easier. For example, when I lived in Florida, I had to obtain a Florida driver's license. Then when I moved to Washington state, I had to turn in my Florida driver's license for a Washington driver's license. Now I live in California and I had to do it all over again. Having one driver's license will solve this problem especially for people that are in IT consulting, because they spend an average six months in a particular state working on their project. I know several people are concerned about the biometric aspect of it. The government has other ways to get your data and personal information they deem it necessary. So that should not be a concern at all. I definitely think this national driver's license system should be given the green light.

cajun warthog

Let's see, we want to swap state workers for even more inept and lazy federal workers. Instead of standing in line with the state system, I'll be standing in line with the totally inept federal system. I have continuous dealings with state and federal systems, and I'll take state workers every time.

If the Pentagon computers can be hacked, what would make these new ID computers immune to hackers? If the federal government wants to set new standards for licensing, then supply the funds needed for that change. Let the states enact the new standard within a certain time frame, but leave the control with the state.

Yes, I am afraid of Big Brother. I deal with him daily, and the results are not good.


Driver's licenses should be state issued. Our federal government can't handle what they are supposed to now, let alone take on driver's licenses. And for those who want a national ID card, our country already has a national ID card that shows proof of citizenship. It is called a passport.


I'll take a different view, Why a license at all? Let's free the thousands of bloated bureaucrats that are now chained to their desk. Set them free and allow them to enjoy liberty in the private sector. Millions of square feet of office space and expenses will be saved. To revoke the license of a criminal or terrorist will not stop them from driving. Eliminating government agencies and increasing the labor pool will lower taxes and give us fewer government controls. This will help stimulate the economy. Along with the fresh influx of workers we can restore the private sector industry with a little less Big Brother.


If the federal government establishes a national driver's license, then they will create the funds necessary to pay for its use by the states. Another movement toward socialism. This opens the door for 20 million to 60 million illegal immigrants to legally obtain citizenship.

The possibilities for identity theft will increase significantly as while there will be enough high tech in the card that ordinary people won't want to bother copying it; thieves will. It will likely create a new industry in identity theft that doesn't yet exist.

It will create a national database so that it makes it easier for the government to control the rights and privileges of people and deny rights to those it thinks are of opposing points of view to the main dogma of government think.

It will lead to the restriction of who can buy and sell and if you can't show your federal ID, then you can't buy and sell. And last, it opens the door to your driver's license being a chip implanted into your forearm or forehead.

I don't want any of these things, although they are bound to happen. Con.


"If the federal government establishes a national driver’s license, then they will create the funds necessary to pay for its use by the states. Another movement toward socialism."

Socialism is government raising funds to create a nationwide program? Well in that case, any nation that collects taxes is a socialist state. Also what's with the generic use of "socialism" as a pejorative? Do people just like to use loud, random isms rather than make a concrete argument?

"This opens the door for 20 million to 60 million illegal immigrants to legally obtain citizenship."


"The possibilities for identity theft will increase significantly as while there will be enough high tech in the card that ordinary people won’t want to bother copying it; thieves will."

Which is different from what happens with driver's licenses today how exactly? Ordinary people don't fake IDs. They have no need to. Criminals do. They have a need to. They don't even need to fake an ID though, just steal your Social Security number and do everything they need online.


Jim Marrs? Is that you? ID cards are to be used to silence people who don't agree with the government because there's no NSA or CIA to target people for ideological persecution already and keep a file on anybody and everybody?

"It will lead to the restriction of who can buy and sell and if you can’t show your federal ID, then you can’t buy and sell."

Any proof of this?

"And last, it opens the door to your driver’s license being a chip implanted into your forearm or forehead."

I know 1984 was a chilling and creepy book, but it was just a book. A parable. And if you have a chip implanted in your body for ID, at least you can't lose your ID card easily.


For years I had no driver's license, and therefore could not prove my identity. De facto the driver's license is an ID card. Don't fool yourself. Whether a national ID is a good idea or not, those who drive have one. Because it is a state license, it certifies that you know the state laws and may also have other implications regarding whether you can own a vehicle in the state, insurance, etc.

How about splitting the difference? The state issues the driver's license, but the format is standard and the data is nationally available.


I totally agree with a nationalized ID system. As well as Obama's new recommendation for a federal police force. Couple that with a ban on gun ownership, and it will be ideal. Remember, these are all for your own "good" and "safety."

These safety programs are well rooted in history and are shown to work. Just look at Nazi Germany. They had a nationalized ID system and some people got "special" IDs--armbands with a pretty star on it. They had a very efficient national police force called the SS. And all that gun violence was eliminated. Imagine, those special people with the special armbands having guns to defend themselves? What nonsense of violence.

Peace! That is what this is all about! Peace! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil!

Cough cough. Got emotional there for a second, sniff (wipe tears of libtard joy from my eyes).


Con. States have laws about who may drive and what offenses will get your privileges revoked. Some states allow right turns on red; some states don't. The process of obtaining a license includes education on the traffic laws of the state. States set penalties for infractions and enforce them. Until traffic laws are uniform in all 50 states, a national driver's license will not work.


Why in the world would anyone want to create another federal agency? Are you that happy with the current ones? I don't live all over the country; I live in North Carolina.


If you pay federal taxes, the Feds already know about you.

If you don't drive, states issue a non-driver's license, known as a state ID card.

The Feds can implement the standards and a timeframe. Since states regularly upgrade their license format, to increase security, anyway, the funding can come from the states that will have budgeted for a significant portion of the cost.

Also, there would be savings because of the increased buying power of purchasing one standard. This could, theoretically, drive down the cost, helping compensate for the increased cost of creating a more sophisticated (less easily duplicated) ID card. There's something to be said for that kind of efficiency.

Thanks to sophisticated data mining, there is no privacy and there hasn't been any for some years. Your insurance records, your tax records, your property purchases, your credit card usage, telephone records, any loyalty card data, etc., are all available on databases, accessible by the private sector. There are laws in place that make it illegal for government to access some of this information under any circumstances, other data typically requires(ed) a warrant, but not all.

We all know the Patriot Act in particular has loosened the reigns on government law enforcement and if they want the information badly enough, they're going to get it. If you think not having national ID prevents that, think again.

The added complexity of having multiple IDs makes some sense. On the other hand, do you really think most people who check IDs are going to tell the difference between a well made and a poorly made ID from another, non-neighboring state? Having a single ID that's incredibly challenging to counterfeit – if that can exist, makes sense because an anomaly would stand out, don't you think?

I don't know that another agency would be required. I would think it could be handled by the IRS or Homeland Security, since they are database-centric, are experienced with database integration (especially Homeland Security), and already have access to a great deal of the data.

As for cyber security arguments--if the data's not available via the Internet and not connected to computers connected to the Internet, it will increase security considerably. If it's networked over a fairly innately secure network, such as MPLS (multi-protocol label switching), it's even more difficult to breach, while maintaining affordability, relative to other types of wide area networking solutions. Add to MPLS other safeguards, and it's even more challenging. Granted, it's not impossible, but it most likely needs to be achieved from the inside, which is how the majority of such data loss occurs anyway.

So, if it will actually save money and/or increase security, it makes sense. The former, as much as I know, I don't know enough to make an informed decision. The latter--if integration does indeed allow law enforcement to do its job more effectively--and that effectiveness can be proven, then Pro. If it's going to be a technological black hole in which we poor money, then I vote Con. Considering the number of complex database integration projects in which that's been the case, both in the private and public sectors, that's a very real possibility.

Ron Mepwith

National driver's licenses are a mark of tyranny. They are in the mode of "homeland security" (der Vaterland) and "new world order," a favorite Nazi term and idea adopted by Neo-cons.


States rights, case closed. Constitutionally protected. Only powers that are enumerated in the Constitution are reserved for the feds-- for example, national defense. What idiotic bonehead would even suggest such a ridiculous thing?


Sure, why not? Why do we need DMVs in every state? Eliminate the redundancy. You should not worry about Big Brother (unless you have something to hide).


Let's just add my driver's license to my passport so I can drive internationally, and for those who cannot have a passport, we can develop an internal passport and have controls at all the state borders to control those who are not so worthy.

Not no but over my cold dead body. I have carried a military ID since I was 18 to defend the freedom of this country, to defend our rights and that includes never being asked for my papers. I have lived half of my adult life overseas where you have to have your papers with you at all time, de-register, and re-register when you move, and I have learned that freedom of movement is a fundamental freedom in the USA that almost no other first world county has. A national driver's license is just another step to control the populous by the politicians and control Nazis.


Con. Instead, put some dollars into making everyone take a driving test, on the road, when renewing. Get the people with bad habits, sloppy driving, and no skills or proper training, off the road.


I think this issue has little to do with driving and more to do with identification. Yes, there is such a national ID (passport), but not everyone has one. The foreign nationals in this country are required to carry their passports and legal status documents with them at all times while in the U.S., yet they don't. I believe that a federal driver's license including your current citizenship would be a great asset. I know there are many non-U.S. citizens who have lived, worked, and paid taxes here in the U.S. for many years and would see this as profiling. I think that in today's world we need to be identified as citizens. If you don't want to be a U.S. citizen, then why are you here?

Brad C

Not only do I say no to a national driver's license, but hell no.

On state-issued licenses, we should stick with it. It better meets the needs of citizens of each state. The different state laws meet the local needs. States like North Carolina and Virginia choose to have very harsh traffic laws such as severe penalties for speeding where as other states especially in the West choose to be more lenient.

Not too many people know this, but in the original Real ID legislation, there was a requirement for states to sign the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrator's (AAMVA) Driver License Agreement (DLA).

What does this DLA entail? It required member states to share their driver database not only with other states but also foreign countries as well starting with Canada and Mexico. With the amount of corruption, especially in Mexico, it would be a gold mine for identity theft. Even with the language deleted out of the Real ID law, the AAMVA to this day is still pushing for the DLA. Also they recently modified their DLA language to take out Mexico to make it more "palpable" for states to sign on, whereas before they would have chosen not to participate. However, if enough states take the bait from the AAMVA and sign it, the Mexican language could be reinstated and even other countries could be added.


I cannot understand why the U.S., being one country, has potentially 50 different IDs for its citizens. That situation makes a nightmare out of simple tasks like tracking drivers' records, pricing car insurance, and so on. The chaos, as usual, always favors the devious at the expense of the law-abiding people. It increases the cost of insurance, credit, and law enforcement. It increases your risk of being mugged by an out-of-state bum, of being crashed by an out-of state driver, etc. What are the cons? The costs. Please! It is always cheaper to do things in a standardized way' it's called scale economies. The need for state-tailored driving requirements? You're kidding--requirements are almost the same all over the world. It facilitates ID fraud? Impossible to facilitate it more than the current chaotic system does.

I'm afraid the opposition is due to that irrational terror to Big Brother. Besides, the government already has your Social Security number, your passport number, and much more data. They are able to connect the data; it's we who are not because of the diversity of IDs. A national ID would at least help local police and business to identify the bad guys.

Patrick Warner

This entire Real ID Act is a sham. Every prerequisite for getting a government ID is predicated upon other things that are not accepted as ID. Law enforcement is not doing a good job and wants to put the onus on you. This real ID Act has prevented law abiding citizens from even purchasing Patriot Bonds simply because they do not have a driver's license or other government issued ID. The government knows where to send notices for jury duty, knows who must file tax returns, knows where to send the annual Social Security statement, etc. The government already knows who you are. The government just does not want to do its job right. The real ID Act is just another form of unnecessary bureaucratic redundancy and in the end does not truly prove who you are. Does it?


There already exists a bona fide way to prove identity, which the federal government administers, and whose costs are not borne by the states. It is called a U.S. passport. It is bona fide proof of identity, nationality, and residency status. The law should be that no driver's license is bona fide for the purposes of identity; instead, insist on a passport.

Also, it's a really good way to catch the illegals. No passport, immediate deportation. Valid passport with valid visa in hand, they can go about their business.


Con! I do not believe we need a national ID,' or drivers licence. What we really need to do is go back and study the Constitution and then every single law that does not line up with it needs to be taken out. End of story. All the type of laws are not what this country is about, and my opinion is to go against the Constitution is treason.


Another step closer to fascism. This must be all that freedom that Americans are talking about. Freedom to be watched, and monitored. Fly like a bird.


The AAMVA is working to expand the DLA internationally, not only to Canada and Mexico but to Europe, Australia, and Africa as well. In the future, when you're caught speeding to the airport in Namibia, you'll have a hell of a time trying to renew your license in Pennsylvania. AND, the DLA requires all member states to make all information available to member and non-member states, and that will include information like Social Security numbers. This will make it difficult for some to get a 'fresh start' in another part of the world. But it can also keep tabs on international criminals. Is this worth giving up your anonymity?

Currently Connecticut, Arkansas and Massachusetts are members. Say NO to your state! Don't let them join the DLA, it


Veterans enrolled into healthcare systems recieving benefits and enlisted armed forces are required to carry an ID Card that is used in all 50 states and no identity thief is reported, so I agree that a National ID Card law should be in place.

Join the Debate


Participate More!


BW Mall - Sponsored Links

Buy a link now!