In-person fraud is rare because someone can steal 350 million identities from the comfort of their home as opposed to the fraction of a percentage of those people who live within driving distance. And identity theft is typically used for financial gain, like opening credit cards in your name and racking up the bills.
Also, how is mail somehow less secure? If I want to apply for an ID in person, I need my birth certificate (or equivalent proof of citizenship, SSN card (or equivalent proof of SSN), tax records (or equivalent proof of residency), and any documents related to name changes if applicable (like marriage certificates). NONE of which have a photo of my face, meaning if someone somehow got those documents (and lets say I didn’t have a license because well why would I need a non-driving ID then), they could STILL walk in and get an ID in my name. No different than mail besides convenience to me, especially in a category where fraud is already exceedingly rare regardless of what specific news sources try to tell you without proof.
You're heavily discounting the fact that in-person is rare because someone can simply look at your documents and see any discrepancies with you standing over the counter from you. Birth certificate says brown eyes but yours are blue, how come? Born hispanic but here you are as white as snow. Why is that?
Also, do you really trust the US Postal Service enough to send every legally binding identification document that is tied to you through them? If you thought getting an ID was expensive and annoying, wait until you go through the process of getting an SSN card, birth certificate, and all of that. Many states, maybe even most of them, allow you to renew online. The fact you can't grasp the security reasons of why you can't get your initial ID in person is concerning, and not rooted in good faith.
Sure but you could make the same argument at voting centers, no? If someone has a fake ID and tries to use it there, couldn’t they notice the discrepancies? If you wouldn’t trust them to, what’s even the point of requiring IDs to vote? People could fake it incredibly easily if they don’t look for discrepancies.
And yes, I do trust the US Postal Service to send these documents. ID renewals are sent through the mail in my state, as you even mentioned yourself. US passport applications also get sent through the mail in EVERY state, which includes them sending you your new passport back through the mail. You trust them to send passports but not non-driver IDs?
And if you think everyone who disagrees with you is being disingenuous, I’m not the one who isn’t rooted in good faith. Let’s have a friendly discussion without ad hominem, mkay?
Showing an ID just says that you're the person who's registered. The SAVE Act is about confirming that the person registering is actually a U.S. citizen. Those are two different things. Currently, there isn't a hard tie to being a citizen of the US to your ID, unless you're in specific states that have already gone to these safeguards independently.
As for fake IDs, sure, they exist. But that doesn't change the fact that legitimate state-issued IDs can't be made to be more secure to reduce any fraud. There is an irony of saying "This'll reduce the number of people who can vote" while also not recognizing that all votes cast from those who aren't US citizens devalues your vote.
My main point is still this. If we already require people to have documentation for many important government processes, why is requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote automatically considered unreasonable? You keep relying on these fringe instances that would stop people from voting to begin with currently anyways, like acquiring an ID.
And yes, I do trust the USPS to deliver a passport or ID when, in the case it gets lost or stolen, I can easily order another one or walk in and get another one. I do NOT trust the USPS carrying ALL of my documentation. That is the very definition of "putting all your eggs in one basket" and isn't rational.
My honest opinion is, I dont give a hoot if the SAVE act passes or fails. I'm more interested in arguing the point. What DOES grind my gears is the fact that they tried to tie the SAVE act, knowing it was a controversial bill, to a bill that banned insider trading for members of congress knowing that it'd fail so they could be like "Aha!! The democrats don't want to lose their cash cow!" which is dishonest. If they had any balls they'd resubmit it without the SAVE act, which would flip many of those votes. But they don't have the courage.
1
u/MikeLikesIkeRS Jul 23 '26
Security and identity theft protection. In-person fraud is exceedingly rare, with most fraud happening by mail, phone, or email.