In 2005, libertarian Rep. Ron Paul opposed the REAL ID Act, arguing that it poses a threat to American civil liberties by essentially creating a national ID system. Critics, like Jim Harper from the American Enterprise Institute, suggest that this system enters citizens into a national database, treating them as suspects without cause. Proponents, such as Simon Hankinson from the Heritage Foundation, argue that REAL ID could enhance national security by preventing illegal immigration and terrorism. The REAL ID, required by May 7, will be necessary for domestic flights and accessing certain federal facilities. Ultimately, the decision to obtain a REAL ID remains with individual citizens, who must weigh the potential security benefits against privacy concerns.

Libertarian Rep. Ron Paul strongly opposed the REAL ID Act during its 2005 congressional debate, citing its potential to evolve into a national ID card that could infringe on civil liberties by storing unlimited personal information.

The implementation of REAL ID has faced numerous delays across different administrations, with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) setting a new deadline for May 7 to comply.

Simon Hankinson believes that REAL ID will significantly aid in identifying and reducing terrorism and illegal activities in the U.S. by preventing illegal immigrants from easily moving around the country.

Jim Harper argues that REAL ID effectively creates a national identification system, which historically has been misused, and he emphasizes that it treats citizens as suspects without evidence of wrongdoing.

Privacy concerns are central to the criticism of REAL ID, as Harper highlights the potential for government overreach and unnecessary surveillance of law-abiding citizens.

While the REAL ID aims to enhance security, it raises the issue of balancing national security with individual privacy, and citizens in many states can opt for alternative forms of identification.

The decision to obtain a REAL ID ultimately rests with individuals, who must decide whether the benefits of heightened security outweigh the potential risks to their privacy and civil liberties.