[crooked-v]

The US in particular doesn't have a national identity system in the first place because the Republican party has opposed the concept for a long timr for various reasons both ideological ("mark of the beast" claims are less of a thing these days but have been made in the past) and political (having a patchwork of systems makes voter suppression and stochastic disenfranchisement of undesireables easier). Without that, any kind of unified verification system is very unlikely to happen.

[uamgeoalsk]

It's worth being careful with broad characterizations like this. Attributing complex policy opposition to fringe beliefs or bad faith motives oversimplifies the issue and shuts down good faith discussion. Whatever one’s views, that kind of framing isn’t helpful.

[dpkirchner]

But in this case it's absolutely true -- I've yet to see any other reason for Republicans to be opposed to national IDs. Have you?

[astrange]

The funny thing is voter suppression doesn't actually help either party consistently over time. Right now the marginal voter is Republican, and so are all the "low-information" voters (this is the polite term politics people use for, you know.)

So voter ID laws would make them lose every election. But of course, that's not permanent either.

[HelloMcFly]

Would Passports not be considered a "national identity system"?

[crooked-v]

No. They're designed around citizenship, not just identity, and the system is slow, relatively expensive, and increasingly hostile to trans people or anyone else who doesn't fit neat categories that aren't actually necessary for an identity system.