Allow me explain.
The government wants, has legislated and is working toward national Biometric identification. It was legislated in 2005, funded in 2010 and mandated in 2011. Republicans and Democrats voted in support of establishing, funding and implementing a national biometric ID and database.
In 2005, H.R. 418, “The Real ID Act of 2005,” was attached as a rider to HR 1268, the “Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror and Tsunami Relief Act of 2005. Our House of Representatives voted 368-58 and our Senate 100-0 in favor its passage. President Bush signed it into law on May. 11, 2005.
The text of the bill can be found here.
Implementation of provisions of the “Real ID Act” hidden in HR 1268 is the responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security. Thirteen states are already “Real ID” compliant. All remaining states must be required to be compliant by 2021. Any state failing to comply with this law, will be, at the discretion of the DHS, by law, denied federal subsidies for infrastructure, security, and healthcare.
Although some states currently accept a finger print as an acceptable biometric identifier, eventually anyone desiring to live and work in the United States will be required to surrender their DNA—through a voluntary blood or saliva sample—to be entered into a national database for identification purposes. It has been legislated and funded by both Republicans and Democrats, and entered into the federal registry.
In June of 2013, the Supreme Court ruled in Maryland v. King—by a vote of 5-4—that it is constitutional for police to take DNA swabs, without a warrant, from those, rightly or wrongly, arrested of a crime. The ruling, the majority opinion (written by Justice Kennedy) and dissenting opinion (written by Justice Scalia) joined by—pay attention now—Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan, can be found here.
In Maryland v. King, the state sought to uphold a conviction based on the practice of warrant less gathering of an alleged criminals DNA—at the time of his arrest and detainment—which resulted in a conviction for an unsolved rape unrelated to his original arrest.
Note: Maryland v. King did not question the guilt of the accused, only the constitutionality of the warrant less DNA gathering