"Is it going to yield national security or is it going to be hassle for people already complying with the law?"
As expected, the Senate passed the appropriations bill (100-0) and with it instituted a requirement for a national ID card. I think the answer to the question above is pretty obvious... just ask the same question about the federalization of airport workers.
Fortunately some states are asking quesions, although your right to privacy isn't usually the motivating factor... they're all upset that the bill doesn't provide funding with which to take away that right, and it would just be too expensive for them to do it on the state's budget.
I've been reading discussions on both sides of the fence... but truthfully only one side makes sense to me. This bill will not make *anyone* the slightest bit safer. All of the 9/11 hijackers had identification, and for most of them it was valid US ID. The major premise behind a national ID card is that someone from the outside, someone without legitimate papers, is going to do us harm, but nobody with a government-issued ID will be a threat. By requiring people to have a national ID card the government reinforces fear of others without providing the slightest bit of safety.
This bill also calls into question your right to privacy and your right to travel freely around your own country, the latter of which already has one foot in the grave since they took over the airports. The fact that it does this without providing any semblance of security should make us think twice about what the government's real motivation is.
Terrorism, by definition, comes from where you'd least expect it to. Do you think terrorists are going to be stopped by a fucking ID card?