No one needs to read the rest of it.
Only 10 states don't require a "proof of presence" test for DLs. Virginia imposed more stringent regs shortly after 9/11, and the final "proof of presence" component went into effect Jan. 2004. It merely requires that the applicant provide a U.S. birth certificate, naturalization docs, a passport, or foreign passport with valid visa. For local residence, a utility bill or bank statement.
Hardly what anyone in their right mind would call "intrusive."
As for the allegation that it's so "costly", the only costs are for personnel to look at and validate the required documents. I did see one estimate that costs were projected to be $20 million over 5 years, which even conservatively is only $400,000 per year, per state. That's perhaps 8 extra man-years per state to check docs (for you sticklers, a 5 minute document check would mean those 8 people could check 200,000 new DL or ID applications per year, per state).
The WSJ is absolutely nuts and completely disingenuous on this issue.
The WSJ that was passing on the opinions of others, ie.."governors, state legislatures and motor vehicle departments have denounced the bill as expensive and burdensome,
The new federal standard requires participation in a federal retirement plan before you can get a state driver's license. It's true, and already being implemented: no Social Security card, no driving in NY. That's ******* intrusive.
Before you say "oh well, SSN is already a default ID#", consider:
- Participation in SS is NOT mandatory
- SSN cards originally explicitly forbade use as ID
- There is no Constitutional basis for granting the feds that power