Identity for indemnityBritain’s last association with the ID card was a bitter war. Hence, it comes as no surprise that there is much opposition to it being reintroduced. Especially when the justification for it is unclear - is it to expose the legal immigrants or the illegal?
The last thing Ashish Sharma, an Indian student fresh off the plane, foresaw was another hurdle to jump for leave to remain in the UK. “After the iris and fingerprint scan and the numerous papers I submitted in India for my visa, I did not expect to be greeted with a new scheme to pander to” he said irritably.
Like most hare-brained government schemes, the recently unveiled ID card has a noble sentiment behind it - the all time favourite - preserving and sustaining democracy. Strangely, it was the same sentiment that led to its abolition in the 1950’s by the Churchill Government: the state wanted to set people free from the strictures imposed during the war.
They were also used by Nazi Germany to distinguish the Jews. Uncannily, the guinea pigs for this new system are a minority community too: the least likely to dissent, Non - EU foreign students and spouses or partners of British citizens. So, until the system becomes compulsory for everyone, the card will be another way to single out this already vulnerable section of society.
Undeniably, the grounds behind the initiation of the scheme are reasonable. But this grand plan to solve the nation’s illegal immigration woes has some grave flaws. For example, this card - an employer’s one stop for information - does not even have to hold the national insurance number.
The shadow home secretary Dominic Grieve rightly pointed out: "The Government are kidding themselves if they think ID cards for foreign nationals will protect against illegal immigration - since they do not apply to those coming here for less than three months." Furthermore, the rising cost of the scheme is another sore point with the opposing party. Presently, this scheme costs an approximate £4.7bn and is expected to rise.
However, the arguments made by civil libertarians over the violation of the rights of Non-EU citizens can be swiftly swept aside – the card demands no more information than the existing visa application procedure. Indeed, those arguments are also on shaky grounds for EU nationals with many EU countries already in various stages of issuing their own versions of new ID, including iris and fingerprint scans in passports. Germany, for one, has already introduced a biometric passport including fingerprint and iris scans.
Hence, despite the controversy dogging the scans it is not unique to the UK. However, the Government’s penchant for losing confidential information is. In August a Home Office contracted consultancy lost a computer stick containing all of the information of prisoners in England and Wales. This is just one of the many instances of data loss that emerged this year.
This scheme, – if organised efficiently – to some extent could help combat the serpentine lines at the immigration counter and genuinely aid employers. But until there is a clear, defined and unbiased system in place a vague promise of future indemnity does not warrant the surrender of the identities of even a few people.
Like most hare-brained government schemes, the recently unveiled ID card has a noble sentiment behind it - the all time favourite - preserving and sustaining democracy. Strangely, it was the same sentiment that led to its abolition in the 1950’s by the Churchill Government: the state wanted to set people free from the strictures imposed during the war.
They were also used by Nazi Germany to distinguish the Jews. Uncannily, the guinea pigs for this new system are a minority community too: the least likely to dissent, Non - EU foreign students and spouses or partners of British citizens. So, until the system becomes compulsory for everyone, the card will be another way to single out this already vulnerable section of society.
Undeniably, the grounds behind the initiation of the scheme are reasonable. But this grand plan to solve the nation’s illegal immigration woes has some grave flaws. For example, this card - an employer’s one stop for information - does not even have to hold the national insurance number.
The shadow home secretary Dominic Grieve rightly pointed out: "The Government are kidding themselves if they think ID cards for foreign nationals will protect against illegal immigration - since they do not apply to those coming here for less than three months." Furthermore, the rising cost of the scheme is another sore point with the opposing party. Presently, this scheme costs an approximate £4.7bn and is expected to rise.
However, the arguments made by civil libertarians over the violation of the rights of Non-EU citizens can be swiftly swept aside – the card demands no more information than the existing visa application procedure. Indeed, those arguments are also on shaky grounds for EU nationals with many EU countries already in various stages of issuing their own versions of new ID, including iris and fingerprint scans in passports. Germany, for one, has already introduced a biometric passport including fingerprint and iris scans.
Hence, despite the controversy dogging the scans it is not unique to the UK. However, the Government’s penchant for losing confidential information is. In August a Home Office contracted consultancy lost a computer stick containing all of the information of prisoners in England and Wales. This is just one of the many instances of data loss that emerged this year.
This scheme, – if organised efficiently – to some extent could help combat the serpentine lines at the immigration counter and genuinely aid employers. But until there is a clear, defined and unbiased system in place a vague promise of future indemnity does not warrant the surrender of the identities of even a few people.
No comments:
Post a Comment