The Left would have you believe that voter I.D. is discriminatory. Racist. Oppressive. Why? Because, according to the Left, many minorities and low-income individuals simply lack the time or ability to obtain the I.D. they would need to vote. They can't find transportation to the DMV. The government I.D. offices are only open during working hours, when hourly wage workers are occupied with their own jobs. In short, for many individuals, getting an I.D. is just impossible.
So here's your friendly reminder about proof of identification laws in the U.S.: in order to work legally in this country, you have to prove your identity using documents like a passport, driver's license, Social Security, or birth certificate. The I-9 form, which employers are required by the federal government to collect in order to verify an individual's eligibility to work in the U.S., requires the production of the very same I.D. that the Left says is impossible to obtain.
"All U.S. employers must complete and retain a Form I-9 for each individual they hire for employment in the United States," the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency writes on its website. "[T]he employer must examine the employment eligibility and identity document(s) an employee presents to determine whether the document(s) reasonably appear to be genuine and relate to the individual and record the document information on the Form I-9."
That's right. If you want to work legally in the U.S., the federal government will not accept a water bill as proof of your identity or residence. It will not accept a bank statement. Heck, it won't even accept your driver's license as a sole means of identification. If you only have your driver's license, then you must also produce a Social Security card or birth certificate.
This begs the question of how the hypothetical low-income individuals in the liberals' examples were ever actually hired for a job that they now can't possible get away from in order to obtain a valid I.D.
So the next time a liberal tells you that requiring I.D is racist, or that requiring it is oppressive, or that the women in this story in the New York Times couldn't possibly find the time to obtain a valid I.D., just ask them the following: if it's oppressive to require proof of identity to vote, then why is it not oppressive to prove your identity to get a job?
UPDATE: I just got off the phone with an operator at the University of Chicago Medical Center, where Michelle Obama worked as a vice president prior to her husband's election in 2008. I asked the operator if the hospital requires proof of identity prior to receiving treatment. He said the hospital did require proof of identification, such as a driver's license, birth certificate, or Social Security card (none of which is required to vote in many states). But what about emergency ER treatment? Would I have to provide I.D. to receive emergency care? Yes, he replied.
New question: if health care is a right, but requiring an individual to provide I.D. prior to voting is racist or oppressive, then how is requiring an I.D. prior to receiving health care not oppressive? Inquiring minds want to know.